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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds only that this is a single-entity fetch that surfaces per-fact provenance, which is useful but largely overlaps the output schema. No auth, rate-limit, or not-found behavior is disclosed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states the operation first and then the payload fields. No filler, no redundancy, every clause 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?

With a full output schema, rich annotations, and 100% parameter coverage, the description is nearly sufficient as-is. The only real gap is the absence of usage routing, which is a guidelines concern rather than a completeness one.

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% and the single fund_id parameter is fully documented (including its source), so the schema carries the load. The description's 'by id' adds nothing beyond the schema; 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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Get one private fund by id') and enumerates the returned fields (name, vintage, VC-fund flag, gross asset value, managing organization, per-fact sources). This clearly separates it from the person/company/investor siblings by resource type, though it never explicitly names or contrasts with them.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no alternatives named, and no prerequisites stated in the description itself. The only routing hint ('from vc_get_investor's funds list') lives in the schema, not the description, so an agent reading only the description gets no usage direction.

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