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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context: this is a free/teaser tier, funding-round history comes without amounts, and investors/acquisitions/subsidiaries are only previews rather than full records. That sharply sets agent expectations about data completeness.

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 zero filler; the entity and its payload are stated immediately and the limitations follow compactly.

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 read-only/open-world profile. The description supplies the missing piece, the teaser-tier coverage limits, leaving little an agent needs that is absent.

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% and both id and url are fully documented in the schema, including the 'pass exactly one' rule. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific resource (PitchBook company profile) and enumerates its content: overview, contact/HQ, funding rounds, and previews of investors/acquisitions/subsidiaries. It clearly distinguishes a company lookup from the sibling advisor/fund/investor/limited_partner tools by virtue of the entity type, though it never explicitly contrasts with them.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative for fetching related entities. The 'free/teaser' phrasing hints at a limited tier, but the agent must infer when this tool is the right choice versus pitchbook_investor or pitchbook_fund.

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