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 the id-based scoping but says nothing extra about return shape, missing-record behavior, or coverage; with annotations carrying the load, a 3 is appropriate.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, correctly sized for a one-parameter lookup. It is minimal but not padded, so no sentence is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover safety. However, the description omits how to obtain the company id (presumably from the search tool), which is the one piece of context an agent needs for this lookup.

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 sole parameter already includes an example value ('752821-12'), so the schema fully documents the id. The description's 'by company id' merely restates this, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 specific resource (PitchBook companies dataset record) and the retrieval key (company id), which lets an agent distinguish it from the sibling facets and search tools. It is clear but stops short of explicitly naming the alternatives it is not.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'record by company id' suggests a single-record lookup, but the description never states when to prefer this over datasets_pitchbook_companies_search or datasets_pitchbook_companies_facets, nor where the id comes from.

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