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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds no behavioral context such as result ordering, pagination, or result caps, leaving it at the minimum viable level for an annotated tool.

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 short sentences, purpose front-loaded, no padding. The second sentence wastes a little space on facets ('deadline', 'portal') that are not actual parameters.

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 nine fully documented parameters, no output schema, and complete annotations, the description is adequate but not complete: it omits real filters like days, limit, industry, keywords, location, and company_name while citing two non-existent ones. An agent could still invoke it correctly from the schema alone.

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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add format or syntax detail beyond the schema, and its mention of 'portal' and 'deadline' points to filters that do not exist among the nine parameters, so it neither helps nor hurts materially.

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 ('Find crowdfunding campaigns') and enumerates search dimensions, which distinguishes it from the sibling search_funding_rounds. However, it names 'deadline' and 'portal' as searchable facets even though no such parameters exist, slightly muddying the picture.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this over search_funding_rounds, search_investors, or other siblings, and no mention of prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and domain.

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