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 structurally. The description adds only the fact that the data is 'crawled' PitchBook data; it says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or record freshness. With annotations carrying most of the load, a 3 is appropriate.

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 sentences, zero filler, and the core fetch action is front-loaded ahead of the routing hint. Every sentence earns its place.

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 single-parameter lookup tool that ships an output schema and annotations, the description covers purpose and routing adequately. Minor gaps remain around what the record contains and error behavior, but those are largely carried by the output schema.

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% and the schema even supplies a concrete id example (864326-44). The description references the 'id' but adds no format or syntax detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (Fetch), the exact resource (one crawled PitchBook limited-partner record), and scope (single, by document id). It distinguishes itself from the sibling search tool by naming it directly, so an agent can tell them apart without inspecting schemas.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to datasets_pitchbook_limited_partners_search when it needs to find LP records, which implies this tool is for retrieval once an id is known. No explicit 'when not to use' or facet-handling guidance, so it falls just short of the top mark.

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