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 usefully adds data provenance ('crawled public company profile catalog ... discovered from PitchBook's public sitemap'), which tells the agent the data is a scraped public snapshot rather than a live feed. It says nothing about pagination limits or result ordering, though the schema handles those.

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 that leads with the verb and resource before the parenthetical detail. Efficient with no wasted preamble, though the parenthetical field list is dense and could be trimmed.

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 the safety profile. For a 14-parameter filter/search tool whose schema is fully documented, the description is adequate; the only real gap is the absence of routing guidance toward the facets and item siblings.

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% across all 14 parameters, so the schema already documents each filter's type, defaults and constraints. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the field list, which is the expected baseline 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?

States a specific verb (Search) and resource (PitchBook companies dataset) and enumerates the fields the catalog contains (overview, description, contact/HQ, industry, financing status, previews of investors/acquisitions/subsidiaries). It does not differentiate itself from the closely named siblings datasets_pitchbook_companies_facets or datasets_pitchbook_companies_item, so an agent gets a clear purpose but no routing help.

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 word 'Search' and the filter-oriented framing imply a discovery use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusions, and no pointer to the facets/item siblings for browsing or single-record retrieval. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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