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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate them. It adds meaningful context beyond the annotations by indicating that this is a 'Pro tier' feature, which implies an access/authorization requirement, and it details the kind of data returned.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the purpose, lists specific output content, and notes the access tier with no wasted words. Every phrase adds information an agent can use.

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?

For a one-param, read-only tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description gives a useful inventory of what the tool returns and the access condition. It stops short of explaining edge cases like invalid slugs or absence of signals, but the core invocation context is well covered.

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?

The schema documentation covers the single 'slug' parameter completely, so the description doesn't need to explain parameter meaning. The description doesn't add nuances about slug format or sourcing, but with 100% schema coverage the baseline value is already provided.

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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource — 'Get comprehensive investor signals for a fund' — and enumerates distinct output categories such as GP thesis, bullish/contrarian signals, and founder dos and don'ts. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_fund or get_gp_profile without requiring the agent to open schemas.

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 usage context is implied: an agent can infer this is the right tool when investor signals for a fund are needed. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to adjacent siblings like get_fund or get_gp_profile, so the routing decision is left to inference.

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