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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core aggregation, sorting, and filtering behavior, including that underwater events are included by default and that certain rounds can be excluded. However, it does not mention the limit parameter or pagination behavior, which would be useful for an agent.

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 sentences that front-load the primary action and key filtering capabilities. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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?

Given the tool has 14 parameters and no annotations, the description provides a high-level overview but leaves significant gaps. While an output schema exists, the description does not clarify sorting order or required credentials. It is adequate but not fully complete for an agent to use confidently.

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 0%, and the description does not explicitly name any parameter. It only broadly mentions filtering dimensions (tags, industry, region, time, round), leaving the agent to map these to specific properties. Many parameters like limit, is_underwater, scope_ids are not described at all, resulting in poor semantic clarity.

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 it aggregates and ranks companies by total funding amount in RMB, with support for various filters (company tags, industry, region, time, round). It specifies suitability for answering top rankings in a track, distinguishing it from sibling tools like aggregate_funding_by_tags, which aggregates by tags rather than per-company ranking.

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 indicates appropriate use cases (answering top funding rankings) and mentions that IPO rounds can be excluded. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives, leaving implied but not explicit guidance.

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