datasets_pitchbook_advisors_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for disclosing behavior. It adds provenance (discovered from PitchBook's public sitemap) and clarifies advisor types, but does not mention that the operation is read-only, whether there are rate limits, or how results are ordered by default. The sort enum is listed in both the description and schema, so it adds limited additional value.

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 four sentences and generally compact. It front-loads the primary purpose and then adds context. There is minor redundancy (both the first and second sentences start with 'Search/Searches'), but overall it is efficient and free of unnecessary filler.

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?

Given the tool has 10 parameters and no output schema, the description provides essential domain context and sort options, but does not describe the return format or pagination behavior beyond what the input schema already states. The mention of 'profile catalog' implies result content, but more detail on response structure would improve completeness.

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 100%, so the description does not need to explain parameters. It does provide helpful domain context by defining what an advisor is (service provider — e.g., investment bank, lender), which aids in interpreting the service_type parameter. However, this is supplementary rather than essential.

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 function: searching the PitchBook advisors dataset. It specifies the resource (advisor/service provider profiles) and the action (search), distinguishing it from related tools like datasets_pitchbook_advisors_item and datasets_pitchbook_advisors_facets by describing it as a search over a catalog.

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 context about the data source (crawled public PitchBook sitemap) and that it searches a catalog, which implies typical usage for finding advisors. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., datasets_pitchbook_advisors_item for single profiles) or provide exclusions.

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