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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: the cost structure (included in Pro, or €0.10 per call over MPP), and the not_found behavior before any payment for funds with no published GP data. This is genuinely useful operational information that an agent would not otherwise know.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core purpose is in the first sentence, followed by usage context, cost, edge-case behavior, and prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure guides the agent from what → when → cost → failure mode → prerequisite. No wasted words.

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 read-only, idempotent tool with 2 well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential operational context: purpose, usage, cost, failure behavior, and prerequisite. The only minor gap is that it doesn't describe the shape of the returned GP profiles, but with no output schema and a clear domain concept, this is a small omission rather than a critical one.

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 both parameters well. The description adds value by emphasizing that fund_slug must come from search_funds and should not be guessed, and by clarifying that gp_name is an optional filter. This reinforces the schema rather than merely repeating it, which is appropriate given the high coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb ('DRILL DOWN to the people') and clearly identifies the resource: General Partner profiles for a fund. It explicitly contrasts with fund-level information ('rather than what the fund does'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_fund. The title and description align, and the purpose is immediately understandable.

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 description explicitly states when to use this tool: when the question is who to approach and what they personally focus on, rather than what the fund does. It also names the prerequisite: 'Requires a slug from search_funds,' and the schema reinforces this by instructing to call search_funds first. This is clear, actionable guidance with no ambiguity.

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