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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the status progression (soft_circled or term_sheet based on terms), the need for mutual acknowledgment, and the visibility constraint (not shown in public round progress until both ack). It also notes the requirement for an API key. However, it does not cover error conditions or idempotency.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences that front-load the main action. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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?

Given the complexity (6 parameters, nested object, no output schema, no annotations), the description is relatively complete. It covers the two possible initial statuses, the need for founder acknowledgment, and public visibility. However, it lacks information about the response format or error handling, which would be beneficial given the absence of an output schema.

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 description coverage is 83% (5 of 6 parameters documented). The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining how the 'terms' parameter affects the initial status and by noting the maximum length of 'notes' (4000 chars). The parameter descriptions in the schema are adequate, but the tool description enriches the meaning.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Record an investor's intent-to-fund a project.' It uses a specific verb ('Record') and resource ('intent-to-fund'), and it distinguishes from sibling tools like acknowledge_commitment and list_commitments by focusing on the initial submission action.

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 provides clear context on when to use this tool (recording intent) and explains the two scenarios (with/without terms) that affect the initial status. It also clarifies that founder acknowledgment is required for full commitment. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though the sibling tool list provides implicit differentiation.

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