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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, open-world and non-destructive, so the bar is low. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the index covers only investors who 'have actually written cheques in the Fundz deal data,' which tells the agent something about result recall and data provenance.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The capability and coverage claim come first, and the return-value handoff to the next tool is front-loaded where the agent needs it.

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 read-only search with no output schema, the description covers what is essential: what it searches, the corpus it searches, and that the output is ids for get_investor_profile. Safety semantics are already supplied by annotations.

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 both the query matching style (partial names like 'sequoia', 'a16z') and the limit range are already documented in the schema. The description adds no further syntax or matching nuance, 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?

Specific verb+resource ('Find investors by name') with an explicit scope (37,000+ firms and angels). It also distinguishes itself from the many other search_* siblings by naming its downstream counterpart, get_investor_profile.

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?

States that results are ids meant to be passed to get_investor_profile, which establishes a clear two-step workflow. It stops short of an explicit when-not rule (e.g., call get_investor_profile directly if you already hold an id), but the routing is unambiguous.

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