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 goes beyond that with a real cost model (1 credit per record, minimum 2) and the practical implication for page_size, which an agent needs before spending budget. It stops short of mentioning result caps, but the schema carries those.

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 short sentences, zero filler: capability first, cost constraint second, routing third. Everything is front-loaded 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?

For a 14-parameter, fully-documented, zero-required search tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description supplies exactly the missing pieces: dataset scope, cost behavior, and sibling routing. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are already documented and a 3 would be the baseline. The description adds value by tying page_size to the credit cost ('keep `page_size` to what you need'), giving the agent a reason to tune a parameter the schema only defines mechanically.

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 a precise resource (crawled public PitchBook company-profile catalog), plus what the results contain (company identity and profile previews). It is immediately distinguishable from its siblings: facets browses filters, item returns one profile.

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?

Names both adjacent siblings explicitly and the condition that selects each one ('use ..._facets to browse filters or ..._item for one profile'), so the agent knows when this multi-result search is the right call versus the alternatives.

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