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 genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: the response is a 'free/teaser overview' and only a 'preview of fund commitments', warning the agent that data is deliberately partial. It stops short of mentioning auth or rate-limit behavior.

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 the resource first and the payload description second; no filler, no redundancy. Every clause ('institutional investor', 'teaser', 'fund commitments') carries distinct information.

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-value structure need not be described, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description covers entity type and content preview, which is sufficient for a simple two-param lookup; only the absence of sibling disambiguation keeps it from being 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 id and url are already fully documented, including the 'pass exactly one of id or url' constraint and the id format example. The description adds nothing about parameter semantics, so the baseline 3 for schema-covered params is correct.

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 resource and scope: a PitchBook limited partner profile, expanded as 'institutional investor', and enumerates the contents (free/teaser overview, contact, fund commitments). This is clear enough to identify what the tool returns, though it never names the closely related siblings (pitchbook_investor, pitchbook_advisor, pitchbook_company) to disambiguate which entity type this is for.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no routing to alternatives despite several adjacent pitchbook_* profile tools. The only hint is the 'free/teaser' qualifier, which implicitly signals a limited-data source rather than a full one; the agent must infer that this is the single-entity lookup path.

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