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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that it returns investor profiles with specific fields, but does not disclose additional behaviors like pagination, rate limits, or error handling. Since annotations cover the key traits, the description adds modest value.

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 a single concise sentence with a practical example. The purpose is front-loaded, and the example is helpful for invocation. It is efficient without unnecessary verbosity, though the example could be considered slightly redundant given schema examples.

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?

For a search tool with 6 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides the essential return fields and an example. It lacks details on pagination or error handling, but these are not critical for a read-only search operation. The presence of sibling tools clarifies the domain context.

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 100%, so each parameter is documented. The description provides an example that illustrates usage of q, limit, and _apiKey, which adds slight clarity, but it does not explain parameters beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose with a specific verb (search), resource (investor database), and lists the returned fields (name, type, focus sectors/stages, portfolio, location). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like startuphub_startups, which targets startups.

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 implies usage for investor searches but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives. Sibling tools like startuphub_startups exist, but no direct guidance is provided. The example shows a typical call but does not clarify exclusions or selection criteria.

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