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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful scope context beyond them by calling the profile a 'teaser' with 'previews,' signaling the data is a limited marketing summary rather than a full record. No auth or rate-limit detail, but the teaser framing is a genuine behavioral signal.

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 waste, with the core purpose and returned fields front-loaded before the sibling routing. Every clause 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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not needed in the description, and the purpose plus data scope plus sibling routing are covered. The only gap is that two related sibling tools (advisor, limited_partner) go unmentioned, leaving minor routing ambiguity.

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 itself documents both id and url including the 'pass exactly one' rule and an id example. The description adds nothing about parameter format or selection, 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+resource ('Fetch a PitchBook fund's public teaser profile') and enumerates the returned fields (strategy, status, manager, size, vintage, LP/benchmark previews). It also names the sibling tools it is not, so an agent can distinguish it from pitchbook_company and pitchbook_investor 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 the agent: 'Use pitchbook_company or pitchbook_investor for company and investor profiles,' which implicitly frames this tool as the fund lookup. It omits pitchbook_advisor and pitchbook_limited_partner, two present siblings, so the exclusion set is incomplete.

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