Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the readOnly/closed-world annotations, the description discloses that the call is free and needs no API key, that output is counts only with no names or contacts, and that counts are not yet scored against strategy or fund size. These are the limitations an agent most needs to represent the result honestly.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the cost/free signal and the use case, then output semantics, then parameter notes, then the alternative. Every sentence adds information an agent can act on.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 3-parameter read-only preview with no output schema, the description fully covers return shape (counts per LP type, no contacts), the key caveat (unscored), units, and the escalation path. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden and does well: it specifies target_fund_size_m is in USD millions, that lp_types optionally narrows types, and it enumerates the six LP type values that the schema lacks as an enum. It leaves fund_strategy's expected format unstated, keeping it just short of a 5.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific action (preview LP matches) and precisely what is returned: counts of LP-type investors per LP type, no names or contacts. It also distinguishes itself from the follow-up tool request_lp_intro, so an agent can route correctly without opening a schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It names the exact triggering scenario (a GP raising a fund wants to find LPs) and an explicit alternative path (offer request_lp_intro for a demo where specific LPs are released). Both when-to-use and the next step are stated, not inferred.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.