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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that inputs are 'validated server-side' and that it returns an 'audited deliverable,' but it does not disclose other behaviors like async handling, auth requirements, or rate limits. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two dense sentences, front-loaded with the purpose. The reference case is illustrative but slightly verbose; overall, it is efficient and earns its place.

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?

This is a complex tool with nested objects and no output schema. The description mentions 'structured, audited deliverable' and lists reference case outputs, but lacks explicit response structure, input field mapping, and async guidance. The reference case is a hint, not a substitute for complete documentation.

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?

The schema description coverage is only 20%, yet the tool description provides no parameter meaning beyond a vague 'send the documented case fields.' It does not explain what company, round, or preferences should contain, making it impossible to correctly fill the parameters without external documentation.

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 resource: 'Shortlist d'investisseurs ciblés' and specifies the action via 'Returns a structured, audited deliverable.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like investor_list by emphasizing 'fit score + warm intro path + first message angle,' showing a unique value proposition.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance or alternative tools are mentioned. The fundraising context is implied via 'FUNDRAISING' and the reference case, but the description does not explain how this tool differs from or when to choose it over siblings like investor_list or funding_hunter.

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