Apex Fund Match

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive nature. The description adds that Apex partners get a priority boost with direct intros, and describes the return fields. No contradictions.

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 concise at about 5 sentences, front-loaded with purpose and returns, then special info and usage. It is well-structured without redundancy.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description still lists return fields (similarity scores, recent investments, tier, geography, whyMatch) and explains the priority boost. All parameters are covered with contextual hints. The description is fully complete for the tool's complexity.

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%, but the description adds value by explaining that the 'description' field is embedding-matched and that 'specific is better', and clarifies that stage, chain, sector are soft filters. This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 finds Web3 funds, angels, accelerators, family offices, and CEX venture arms most likely to back a project, returning a ranked list with specific details. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying fund types and filters, and the verb 'Find' combined with the resource is specific.

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 explicitly lists three use cases (who to approach, lead investors, CEX venture arms as listing path) and mentions filters. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use but provides clear context for when to invoke.

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