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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), so the bar is low. The description still adds meaningful behavioral context: the response is only the free/teaser portion and most numeric figures and full lists are subscription-gated, which warns the agent about partial results before it calls. It does not mention auth requirements or rate limits, keeping it short of a 5.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, then the gating caveat, then sibling routing. Every sentence carries distinct information with no filler.

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 explanation is not required. For a two-param, read-only profile lookup, the description supplies purpose, content scope, subscription limitation, and alternative routing, which is everything an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 already documents both id and url, including the 'pass exactly one' constraint. The description merely restates 'by id or url' without adding format or syntax detail, so 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), a specific resource (PitchBook advisor/service-provider profile), and the scoped portion (free/teaser) with an enumeration of what it contains. It also names exactly the sibling entity tools to use for other types, so an agent can distinguish it without opening a 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?

Explicitly routes to pitchbook_company, pitchbook_investor, pitchbook_fund, and pitchbook_limited_partner 'for those entity types', giving a clear when-to-use-this vs. when-to-use-alternatives condition. Nothing is left to inference.

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