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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe, open-web read operation. The description adds context that the data is crawled from PitchBook's public sitemap, which supports the open-world hint, but it does not disclose rate limits, authentication needs, or other operational constraints.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and the dataset's scope. Every element, including the parenthetical about the data source and fields, adds useful context without redundancy.

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?

Given the 10 optional parameters, full schema coverage, and an output schema, the description provides sufficient context about the dataset's origin and contents. It does not need to explain return values or pagination, which are covered elsewhere, but it could mention that results are paginated to be fully complete.

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 all parameter semantics are fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, which is the baseline for a well-documented 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 verb ('Search') and resource ('PitchBook limited partners dataset'), and details the dataset's contents (overview, description, contact, fund commitments). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like datasets_pitchbook_limited_partners_facets or datasets_pitchbook_limited_partners_item, so it falls short of a 5.

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 description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., facets or item tools). There are no exclusions or prerequisites mentioned, leaving usage entirely implied by the name.

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