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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return shape (id, name, website, description, fee fractions) and, crucially, the unit semantics of fee values ('decimals in [0,1] — e.g. 0.085 means 8.5%'), which prevents a real class of misinterpretation. It does not cover pagination behavior or result ordering, but the units disclosure is high-value behavioral context.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then return fields, then unit clarification, then routing. Every sentence carries distinct information and none is redundant.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must describe returns — and it does, listing the exact fields and their semantics. Combine that with the downstream id usage and the tool is callable without further context. Minor gap: no mention of pagination or default result limits.

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% — both limit and offset are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter syntax, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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+resource ('List the user's venture investment platforms') and disambiguates the domain with parenthetical examples (SPV syndicators, fund managers). Clearly distinguishable from sibling list tools like list_venture_deals or list_venture_events.

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?

Provides clear downstream routing: 'Use the returned id with get_venture_platform, create_venture_deal, and update_venture_platform.' This tells the agent when this tool is a prerequisite. However, it doesn't state when NOT to use it or contrast with other listing tools.

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