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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true). The description adds the pagination ceiling (page × page_size ≤ 10000) and the aggregation nature of the result, but the pagination limit is repeated from the schema rather than being new behavioral context, so the added value is modest.

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 enum is listed twice ('Facet enum: institution_type...' and 'Allowed values: institution_type...') and the page constraint is duplicated from the schema, so two of the five sentences are mostly redundant. The purpose is front-loaded, but real waste exists.

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 explained, and the description covers the aggregation purpose, required facet, and pagination bound for an 11-parameter tool. Coverage is adequate, though it could clarify how the optional filters (q, run_id, hq_country, etc.) scope 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 all 11 parameters are already documented. The description restates the facet enum and page rule without adding syntax, format, or interaction detail beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline rather than exceeding it.

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 description names a specific verb and resource: 'Returns terms aggregation counts for the PitchBook limited partners dataset.' It also explicitly directs the agent to the sibling search tool, making it distinguishable from datasets_pitchbook_limited_partners_search without opening either 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 explicitly ('Use datasets_pitchbook_limited_partners_search to search...'), which tells the agent when this tool is not the right choice. It stops short of an explicit positive trigger (e.g. 'use this when you need counts by facet'), leaving the primary when-to-use case implied.

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