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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that - no note on what the record contains, lookup failure behavior, or data freshness. With annotations carrying the load the bar is lower, but this sentence contributes nothing new.

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?

A single compact sentence with the resource and key front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though arguably too terse to earn a top mark given the guidance gaps elsewhere.

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 one-parameter read tool with an output schema (so return values need no explanation) and annotations covering safety, the description is minimally sufficient. It omits how to obtain the id and any sibling routing, which an agent would need to call it in the right context.

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 100% and the schema itself documents the id with an example format ('676215-64'), so the description's 'by advisor id' merely echoes it. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a clear resource (PitchBook advisors dataset) and key (advisor id), and 'record ... by advisor id' implies a single-item fetch, which distinguishes it from the sibling datasets_pitchbook_advisors_search and datasets_pitchbook_advisors_facets. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, but the verb+resource is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the search or facets siblings, nor any statement of prerequisites (e.g. needing an id obtained from search). Usage is only inferable from the tool name and the single required id parameter.

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