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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond them by disclosing data provenance ('stated-only', 'coverage is partial') and that every result carries per-fact sources — material behavioral context for trusting and interpreting results.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the data-quality caveat immediately after. 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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies scope and provenance caveats well; the only real gap is not positioning this search against the sibling discovery/lookup tools.

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 all seven parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description restates the filter dimensions (sector, stage, check size, geography) but adds no syntax, format, or matching-behavior detail beyond what the schema already provides, so 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 (Search) and resource (VC firms, CVCs, solo GPs, accelerators, angel groups) plus the filter axes (sector, stage, check size, geography). It's clear what entity class is queried, but it never distinguishes itself from siblings like vc_search_people, vc_get_investor, or vc_find_investors_for_company, so an agent still has to infer the boundary.

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 'Stated-only (Phase 2)' note implies this is the strategy-based discovery surface and warns that data is partial, which is useful context. But it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing to alternatives such as vc_find_investors_for_company for company-anchored queries; usage is left implied.

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