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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, destructiveHint=false). The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: filtering is applied server-side and total_count reflects the filtered total, which informs how an agent should interpret results. No output schema exists, so this return-shape hint carries real weight.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its feed origin, followed by the filtering and server-side semantics. Every clause carries information; only minor redundancy between the filter list and the schema keeps it from a 5.

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 10-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies the source-of-truth feed, the filtering dimensions, the saved-filter pathway, and the meaning of total_count. Annotations cover safety, and the schema covers parameters, so the remaining coverage is adequate; only explicit when-to-use guidance 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 description coverage is 100% and every parameter is documented in the schema with examples, so the baseline is 3. The description's filter list ('company name, industry, location, keywords, series, amount and date window') merely restates categories already fully specified in the schema, adding no syntax or format detail.

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?

The description states a specific verb (Search) and resource (funding rounds), and grounds it with a concrete reference ('the same feed as app.fundz.net/fundings'). It does not distinguish itself from the many sibling search_* tools (acquisitions, crowdfunding, agreements), so an agent gets a clear purpose but no differentiation.

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?

It enumerates the available filter dimensions and notes that saved filters can be run by name, referencing get_saved_filters, which implies usage. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over alternatives like search_investors or get_daily_leads, and gives no exclusions or prerequisites.

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