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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds the 'Pro tier' access constraint and clarifies the fund-scoped nature, but it does not disclose return content or pagination. No contradiction with 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?

The description is only two sentences and concise with no filler. The second sentence 'Pro tier.' is brief but provides useful access context, earning its place despite being a fragment.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with annotations providing safety hints, the description is minimally adequate. However, there is no output schema, no description of the GP profile content, and no guidance on how this tool relates to get_fund or search_funds, so it is not fully complete.

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 parameters are already fully documented. The description adds little value for parameters, only reinforcing that profiles are fund-scoped and not mentioning the optional gp_name filter.

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 definition clearly states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('General Partner profiles') scoped to a fund. It distinguishes itself from siblings by the unique resource type, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from get_fund or search_funds.

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 intended usage is implied: use this when you need GP profiles for a given fund. The 'Pro tier' note signals an access requirement, but there are no explicit alternatives, when-to-use vs. other tools, or exclusion conditions.

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