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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: what the result set contains (buyer names and MOIC included) and what the 'Continuation Vehicle' route actually covers (continuation funds, strip sales, GP-led tender offers). Pagination limits are left to the schema rather than the description.

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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with the distinguishing capability before the parameter guidance and enum clarification. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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, the description does the right thing by stating what fields come back (buyer names, MOIC) and how counts differ from lists. Only marginal gaps remain, such as pagination behavior in list mode, which the schema's limit/offset handle adequately.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond it by showing how group_by interacts with year and exit_type to produce counts, and by explaining the range vs exact-year relationship implicitly through the example, though the exit_type definition largely repeats the schema.

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 and resource (cross-firm exit search) plus the scope that distinguishes it: 'across ALL European PE firms', explicitly contrasting with 'the per-firm tools'. An agent can immediately separate this from gp_exits without reading either 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('the per-firm tools cannot do') and a concrete alternative mode selection: set group_by to count instead of list, with a worked example answering 'how many continuation-vehicle exits in 2026 across Europe'. Nothing about mode choice is left to inference.

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