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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true). The description adds genuinely non-obvious billing behavior – 1 credit per record, minimum 2 – which is crucial for cost control and not visible in annotations or schema. Return format is covered by the output schema, so nothing critical is missing.

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 compact sentences: purpose, cost/parameter advice, then sibling routing – all front-loaded with zero waste. 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?

With an output schema covering return values and annotations covering the safety profile, the description fills the remaining gaps: what data is returned, cost implications, and how it relates to sibling tools. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 schema already documents all ten parameters, setting a baseline of 3. The description adds practical guidance tying `page_size` to the per-record credit cost ('keep page_size to what you need'), which gives meaning beyond the schema's stated default/max.

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 (public PitchBook limited-partner profile records), and clarifies the record contents (investor summaries, commitment previews). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools datasets_pitchbook_limited_partners_facets and _item, so an agent can tell them apart without opening 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: use _facets to inspect filters and _item for a single record, implying this tool is for multi-record list queries. No ambiguity about which tool to pick for a given intent.

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