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 word 'crawled' hints at data provenance but the description adds little else about freshness, coverage, or failure modes (e.g. missing id).

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the alternative. No filler or repetition.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described. The description covers purpose, id input, and the search alternative, which is sufficient for a single-item retrieval tool; only exotic edge cases are unaddressed.

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 coverage is 100% and the id parameter is documented with an example ('676215-64.'), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description reinforces that the record is scoped to the pitchbook-advisors dataset but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Returns one crawled PitchBook advisor record by id'), and explicitly ties it to the pitchbook-advisors dataset. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling search tool, which it names.

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?

Directs the agent to datasets_pitchbook_advisors_search when the goal is searching, which implies this tool is for single-record lookup by id. Context is clear but there is no explicit statement of when-not to use this tool (e.g. if only an id is available).

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