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

Beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations, it discloses the return shape (current firms plus contact routes), the sourcing model (public pages with the publishing URL and quoted text per route), and privacy boundaries (no phone numbers or home addresses, removal path). This is unusually rich behavioral context for a read tool.

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 purpose, then returns, then sourcing/privacy. Every sentence is doing work except the removal-contact line, which is useful context but slightly beyond selection needs. Appropriately sized overall.

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 need not be explained, and the description nonetheless summarizes them. Scope, exclusions, sourcing, and privacy are all covered — nothing an agent needs to invoke correctly is missing.

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 the schema already documents all 8 parameters and their formats. The description restates the filterable dimensions but adds no syntax or format detail (e.g., how sector normalization or partial name matching works) beyond the schema. 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?

It states a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('investing people') and enumerates the exact roles and filter dimensions (role, firm, sector, geography, name). It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like vc_search_investors (firms) or vc_get_person (single lookup by id).

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 searchable dimensions give clear context for when this tool applies, and the constraint 'Only people in an investing role are included' is an explicit scope exclusion. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., vc_search_investors for firms), leaving sibling routing implicit.

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