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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds real context beyond them: the required brain:read scope, the fact the output may be long, the contents it enumerates, and the meaning of the (review) marker as an unconfirmed founder draft. It does not describe pagination or truncation behavior for a document it warns may be long, which keeps it short of 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 main purpose and default format are front-loaded in the first clause, and each following sentence adds new information (contents, length warning, marker semantics, permission). It reads as a dense run-on rather than a structured list, but there is little wasted text.

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 does a fair job describing what comes back, but key call-shaping details are missing: what the json "overview" actually contains, when to pass startupId, and what locale changes. Adequate for a read tool but not fully self-sufficient.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it only covers format (md default, json adds an overview). The startupId parameter is never mentioned at all, and locale is unaddressed even though it presumably affects the document language — a meaningful gap for a 3-parameter tool.

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 startup's whole company brain as one markdown document" names a specific resource and the retrieval behavior, and the parenthetical clarifies what the json format returns. It does not distinguish itself from siblings such as getfund_documents or getfund_brain_revision, so the agent must infer the boundary from name alone.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the phrase "the whole company brain" and "may be long" signal this is the broad dump, hinting that narrower siblings exist, but no alternative is named and no when-not-to-use condition is given. The retry hint for failed uploads is the one actionable directive.

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