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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, yet the description adds real substance beyond them: exactly what contact data is returned (email, LinkedIn, X, personal site) with provenance (the page it was published on and the quoted source text), what is never collected (phone numbers, home addresses), the public-source origin of the data, and a removal channel. That is meaningful behavioral and trust context an agent cannot infer from the annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, and the field enumeration and provenance/limitation clauses each carry information. The closing removal-policy sentence is somewhat tangential to tool invocation, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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 values needn't be spelled out, yet the description still summarizes them usefully. Combined with the provenance and never-collected guarantees, it is complete for a single-parameter read tool; the only real gap is the missing when-to-use routing against search siblings, which is already penalized elsewhere.

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 person_id parameter already documents its upstream sources, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds only the implicit 'by id' framing and no new format or constraint detail, so the baseline 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 and resource ('Get one investing person by id') and then enumerates the returned facets: investing role, firm history, companies, investments, and contact routes. This is clearly distinguishable from the sibling vc_search_people (a search) and vc_get_investor (a firm-level entity), so an agent can select it without opening a schema.

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 'get by id' and the schema note that ids come from vc_search_people / vc_get_investor, but the description itself never states when to reach for this versus vc_search_people or vc_get_investor. No exclusions or prerequisite conditions are given in the description text.

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