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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the profile is 'full public' and contact emails are deliberately excluded, which tells the agent what it will and won't get without an output schema.

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?

One front-loaded sentence that puts the verb, resource and key first, then enumerates the payload. The enumeration is long but earns its place because there is no output schema; no filler sentences.

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 no output schema, the description must describe the return payload, and it does so thoroughly (thesis, stages, sectors, check size, partners, portfolio, funds, approach preferences) plus an explicit exclusion. It stops short of covering error behavior for an unknown slug.

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% with a single, fully documented slug parameter (including an example), so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds only the provenance of the slug, which is usage context rather than parameter meaning; 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 (get) and resource (a VC firm's full public InvestorMatch profile), keyed by slug, and enumerates the profile's contents so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It also distinguishes itself from search_investors by naming it as the source of the slug.

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?

The description tells the agent where the slug comes from ('from search_investors'), which implies the correct two-step flow. It also sets a boundary ('Contact emails are never included'). It does not, however, state explicit when-not conditions or contrast the use case against list_investor_filters.

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