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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention return format, pagination, rate limits, authentication, or any limitations. The phrase 'detailed information' is vague and adds little beyond the tool name.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the core action and resource. The trailing reference to 'the FMP Crowdfunding By CIK API' is somewhat redundant but does not significantly bloat the description.

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 simple read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description gives the essential context: it returns all crowdfunding campaigns for a given company. It lacks details about the response structure or edge cases, but given the tool's simplicity, it is minimally adequate.

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 the parameter 'cik' already described as 'CIK number to search for'. The description adds 'specific company' but does not elaborate on CIK format or constraints, so it provides minimal added meaning beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Access detailed information on all crowdfunding campaigns launched by a specific company' with a specific verb and resource. The 'By CIK' scope differentiates it from sibling tools like getLatestCrowdfundingCampaigns and searchCrowdfundingCampaigns.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: when you have a CIK and want all campaigns for a specific company. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'specific company' and 'By CIK' phrasing signals the intended use case relative to siblings.

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