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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds genuinely non-structured traits: a per-record credit cost with a 2-credit minimum, and that results may include previews of companies and deals. This is real behavioral disclosure beyond the annotations, though it omits any pagination/total-count 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?

Three tight sentences: purpose first, then cost/pagination guidance, then the sibling pointer. No redundancy and each sentence 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 detail is unnecessary, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description adds purpose, cost, and filter-discovery guidance, leaving only minor gaps around result volume and relationship to the item sibling.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics by tying cost (1 credit per record) directly to page_size, making the parameter's tradeoff explicit rather than just a numeric bound, and its listed filters map to the schema fields.

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 (Search) and resource (stored public PitchBook advisor/service-provider profile records), then enumerates the usable filter axes (keyword, service type, headquarters, founding year). This is clearly distinguishable from the sibling facets and item tools without opening any 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?

Gives clear operating context (credit cost, keep page_size small) and explicitly routes the agent to datasets_pitchbook_advisors_facets to discover filter values. It stops short of naming when NOT to use this tool or how it differs from datasets_pitchbook_advisors_item, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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