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

readOnlyHint and openWorldHint already declare the safety profile, so the description only adds the useful detail that results are aggregation counts rather than records. It discloses the page*page_size ceiling, but that same constraint is already in the schema, and there is no mention of auth requirements, result caps, or what happens on an unknown facet.

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 facet allowed values are enumerated twice ('Facet enum: ...' then 'Allowed values: ...'), and the page/page_size rule is repeated verbatim from the schema. The opening purpose sentence is well front-loaded, but the redundancy costs it.

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 needn't be explained, and the purpose plus sibling routing make the tool callable. Given 11 params with full schema coverage, this is adequately complete, though it could say more about how the q/sort filters interact with the aggregation.

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 baseline is 3. The description largely duplicates schema text — listing the facet allowed values and restating the page constraint — rather than adding syntax, defaults, or interaction semantics beyond what the schema already documents.

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 opening sentence gives a precise verb+resource — 'Returns terms aggregation counts for the PitchBook advisors dataset' — which is clearly distinct from the sibling search tool. An agent can tell this is a facet/aggregation endpoint, not a record-listing one, without opening the schema.

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?

It names the alternative ('Use datasets_pitchbook_advisors_search to search...') and thus distinguishes its own aggregation role, but it does not explicitly state the condition under which an agent should prefer facet counts over a search (e.g. 'use this to build filter options or get distributions'). The routing is clear but not fully framed as when/when-not.

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