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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavior beyond them: alphabetical sort order, 25 results per page, and a hard cap of page 20, plus the field set returned per result. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the resource and directory scope, then filtering, then pagination, then cross-references. Every clause carries information; nothing is restated from the title.

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 compensates by enumerating the returned fields (stages, sectors, check size, thesis summary, profile link) and the pagination envelope. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret results.

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 all five parameters are already documented in the schema, including the query-as-firm-name and the list_investor_filters dependency. The description reinforces the same mapping but adds no new syntax, format, or defaulting detail beyond the schema, which is the baseline-3 case.

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 and resource ('Search InvestorMatch's public directory of venture capital firms') and scopes it as the public directory rather than the full profile, which distinguishes it from get_investor. An agent can tell what it retrieves without opening the 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?

Explicitly routes the agent to list_investor_filters for accepted stage/sector/location values and to get_investor for a full profile, which is strong sibling guidance. It stops short of stating when-not to use this tool (e.g. when you already know the firm), so it is clear context rather than a complete when/when-not rule set.

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