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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), yet the description adds substantial context beyond them: exact output boundaries (no names, slugs, websites or commitments), the free/no-API-key billing status, the keyless daily allowance, and the small-count reporting convention ('<5', 'none'). This is exactly the behavioral detail an agent needs.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the routing instruction comes first, then output scope, then cost, then the pre-search guidance. Every sentence carries distinct, non-redundant information.

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 no output schema, the description fully compensates by stating the return semantics (counts, '<5', 'none') and negative output boundaries. Nothing needed to call or interpret this tool 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% and both parameters are thoroughly documented in the schema, including enum normalization and the undisclosed-HQ handling. The description itself adds no additional parameter semantics, 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 ('does Fund Momentum cover my geography and LP type') and precisely bounds the output ('COUNTS ONLY'). It is unambiguously distinguishable from search_lps, which it names directly.

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?

Explicitly positions itself as 'START HERE for any question about limited partners' and instructs 'Call this before search_lps to find out whether LP Radar covers what you need' – a clear when-to-use with the alternative named and the selecting condition given.

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