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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds useful context: the tool returns an audited deliverable, includes warm intro paths, and validates inputs server-side. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. The reference case adds some promotional noise but is brief and arguably helpful for context.

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?

With no output schema and complex nested parameters, the description should explain the deliverable's contents more concretely. Saying 'structured, audited deliverable' is vague, and the async parameter is not mentioned at all.

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 only 25% and the description adds almost no detail about the parameters. It only references 'documented case fields' without explaining what they are, leaving the nested company/round/existingInvestors structures largely undocumented.

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 clearly states the tool produces an investor list with warm intros and a structured, audited deliverable, and provides a concrete reference case. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from similar siblings like investor_shortlist.

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?

The description gives clear context: it's for FUNDRAISING and investor warm intros, and it instructs to send the documented case fields. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the intended use is clear enough.

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