DryPowder: seed VCs deploying now

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds substantive behavioral context by disclosing exactly what comes back (fund name, HQ, check size, rationale for the deploying claim, DryPowder page link). It stops short of mentioning pagination or how the deploying signal is refreshed.

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?

Three sentences, all front-loaded: purpose first, trigger conditions second, return shape third. No filler or repetition of the title.

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, describing the returned fields is exactly the right compensation, and the filtering scope is clear. An agent can call this confidently; only pagination/limit behavior and the sibling relationship are absent.

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 coverage is 75% and the schema documents city, sector, and stage itself; the description only reinforces the sector filter and optionality of city. The 'limit' parameter and the stage default behavior are left to the schema, so this adds marginal value over what is already structured.

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 verb and resource ('Find seed and pre-seed VC funds') with a clear scope qualifier ('actively deploying capital right now') and the filters applied. It implicitly separates itself from recent_vc_form_d_filings by emphasizing an editorial 'actively deploying' signal rather than raw filings, but it never names the sibling explicitly.

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?

Gives concrete triggering contexts ('when a founder asks which VCs/investors are investing in a sector now, or for a seed investor list'). This is clear usage guidance, but it offers no when-not-to-use conditions or a direct pointer to the sibling tool for adjacent needs.

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

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), and the description adds genuine domain context: that a Form D filing is a leading indicator the fund just raised and will be writing checks. It does not disclose ordering, pagination, or what happens when days exceeds the 120 cap.

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 tight sentences: the first defines the resource and its significance, the second gives usage triggers. No filler, and the core definition 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?

There is no output schema and no annotations about returns, so the description should ideally indicate what a returned fund record contains and how the days/limit params shape results. It covers purpose and intent well but leaves the response shape and parameter behavior unaddressed.

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 0% and the description never mentions 'days' or 'limit'. The agent gets no guidance on the default lookback window, how 'recently' maps to the days parameter, or what limit defaults to, leaving both parameters semantically thin despite their min/max bounds.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('venture funds that recently filed SEC Form D'), plus explains what the filing signals about the fund. It is clearly distinct in substance from the sibling find_deploying_seed_funds, but never names or contrasts that sibling explicitly.

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?

Provides concrete trigger phrases ('which VC funds just raised', 'new VC funds this month') that tell the agent exactly what user intent this tool serves. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or pointing to find_deploying_seed_funds as the alternative for already-active funds.

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