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

Annotations already convey readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds only that lookup is by fund id, without new behavioral context (e.g., not-found behavior, data freshness). Meets the lower bar set by annotations but adds little.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence naming verb, resource, and key. No padding at all.

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 and annotations cover safety, so the description need not explain return values. For a single-param detail tool it is essentially complete, with the only gap being absent routing guidance to the sibling search tool.

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%, so the schema already documents the single id parameter with its format and example. The description adds no parameter detail beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the specific verb (retrieve a record), resource (PitchBook funds dataset), and lookup key (fund id). It's clearly a detail-fetch tool, distinguishable from the datasets_pitchbook_funds_facets and datasets_pitchbook_funds_search siblings by the 'record by fund id' phrasing.

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?

No guidance about when to use this versus the sibling search/facets tools, or how to obtain a valid fund id. The agent must infer that this is the item-lookup counterpart to datasets_pitchbook_funds_search.

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