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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds scope (what fields are returned) but doesn't note error behavior for missing ids or refresh/latency traits. Adequate against the annotation baseline.

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 defines the tool and its return surface without wasted words. Slightly dense list, but every item is meaningful.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail in the description is not required. The description nonetheless names the main returned sections, which helps an agent judge relevance; only error/prerequisite behavior is unstated.

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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, and it already states the id is an organization id from vc_search_investors. The description adds no format/syntax detail beyond the schema, so 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?

Specific verb (Get) + resource (investor organization) + retrieval key (by id). The enumeration of returned content (identity, aliases, external ids, funds, people, contact routes, strategy, sources) distinguishes it clearly from siblings like vc_get_company, vc_get_fund, and vc_get_person.

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?

Usage is implied by 'by id' and the schema notes the id comes from vc_search_investors, which routes the agent correctly. But there is no explicit when-to-use vs vc_get_fund/vc_get_person or when-not-to-use guidance.

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