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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), yet the description adds high-value operational context: a 3-10 second latency because it reasons over every tracked fund, plus an explicit instruction to allow for that rather than timing out and retrying. The cost model is also spelled out.

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 well with the entry-point distinction and the search_funds contrast, but the cost information is stated twice ('COST: included in Pro, or €0.25 per call over MPP' and then a near-identical 'Cost:' sentence), which is redundant bloat.

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 correctly explains the return shape (top 10 funds, slug, reason, score) and adds latency and pricing, which is what an agent needs to decide and to wait. Only the duplicated cost sentence detracts.

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 both 'stage' and 'country' are already documented, including enum normalization. The description adds nothing about the parameters themselves, 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 action and its output precisely: describe a startup in plain language, receive the top 10 matching funds with slug, reason and score. It also positions itself against the sibling search_funds, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening either schema.

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 names when to use this ('when you do not know what to search for', qualitative briefs like 'climate hardware, pre-seed, Europe') and when to use the alternative (search_funds for filters). Both the positive and negative conditions are stated.

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