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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it reads only connections the user uploaded to Fundz, never anyone else's network, and costs no reveal credit. What it lacks is any note on return shape or empty-result behavior, keeping it below 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?

The description is dense but front-loads the core purpose and uses each sentence for a distinct fact (scope, privacy, cost, parameter source, sibling disambiguation). It reads as slightly run-on, but no sentence is wasted.

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 single-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything needed to invoke correctly: what it returns conceptually, the privacy boundary, cost, and parameter source. Only the return-value shape is unaddressed, which is acceptable given the absent output schema.

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% and the single 'company' param is fully documented in the schema, including the id-or-slug format and an example. The description repeats 'takes the company id or slug from a search result' without adding syntax or constraints beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (find which connections work at) and resource (a company), scoped to the signed-in user's OWN uploaded connections. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_company_contacts, which 'also shows this and flags contacts you are already connected to,' so an agent can tell the two apart without opening either 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?

Explains the use case clearly ('for a warm introduction instead of a cold email') and names the overlapping alternative get_company_contacts. It does not spell out an explicit when-not-to-use rule, but the implied differentiation (personal network lookups vs. full contact lists) is clear enough to route correctly.

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