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

The annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds contextual details beyond that: the output is limited to 10 results, each with a reason and score, and it mentions a 'Pro tier' restriction. This is useful but not deep.

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?

Two short sentences convey the core function, output shape, and an important access constraint (Pro tier). Every clause adds value, and the key behavior is front-loaded.

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, single-shot matching tool, the description covers the essential contract: input is a startup description, output is a ranked list of 10 funds with reasons and scores. Since the input schema documents all three parameters and the annotations cover safety, nothing critical 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%, so the parameters are already fully documented. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the general reference to describing a startup, so the score stays at the baseline.

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 clearly states a specific action: describe a startup and receive the top 10 matching funds with a reason and score. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like search_funds by its AI-matching and result-ranking angle, though it doesn't explicitly call out the difference.

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?

It implies when to use the tool, i.e., when a user wants AI-recommended funds for a given startup. However, it never contrasts it with alternatives such as search_funds or get_fund, so an agent must infer the boundary between keyword search and AI-powered matching.

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