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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations by disclosing the acquisition path (premium residential proxy), the coverage boundary (subscriber-only data excluded), and the commercial model ($0.005 USDC per successful call via x402 on Base/Solana/Arc, failures uncharged). For a paid, proxied scrape these are exactly the facts an agent needs before invoking.

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 payload contents, then the identifier, then the operational caveats. Dense but mostly load-bearing; the payment-rail enumeration (Base, Solana or Arc) is slightly more detail than an agent needs to choose the tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the description covers cost, coverage limits and input format. The only gap is the mismatch between the described entity kinds and the schema's kind values, which could mislead on an optional parameter.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters and the baseline applies. The description reinforces the id format with a URL example but adds nothing for kind; in fact it lists 'investor, lender or advisor' while the schema lists 'investor (default), advisor or company', a small inconsistency that does not resolve usage.

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?

States a specific verb-free but precise resource: a PitchBook public profile for an investor, lender or advisor, and enumerates the returned fields (quick facts, HQ address, FAQ answers). It is distinguishable from the sibling finance_pitchbook_scraper_fund_data, which covers fund data rather than entity profiles.

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 gives the required identifier format with a worked example, which implies when the tool applies, and notes that subscriber-only data is out of scope. But it never names an alternative tool or states exclusions relative to siblings such as finance_sec_iapd or finance_pitchbook_scraper_fund_data, leaving selection to inference.

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