datasets_pitchbook_funds_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about the data source (crawled public sitemap, search index) and the sort options, but it does not mention result format, pagination behavior, rate limits, or any other operational behavior. It provides some transparency but not a complete picture.

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 and front-loaded, starting with 'Search PitchBook funds dataset.' It includes relevant provenance and sort info, though some content (sort enum) duplicates the schema. It is compact and readable, with only minor 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?

With no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns, but it only says it searches the 'fund profile catalog' without detailing return structure or fields. It also does not mention pagination constraints beyond the schema, nor does it guide users toward facets/item tools for related tasks. This leaves significant gaps for a search tool with 9 optional parameters.

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 schema fully documents all 9 parameters. The description only repeats the sort enum values already present in the schema, adding no new semantic meaning. This aligns with the baseline of 3 when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 searches the PitchBook funds dataset, with a specific verb and resource. It also adds context about the source (crawled public catalog, search index, discovered from sitemap), but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like datasets_pitchbook_funds_item or datasets_pitchbook_funds_facets beyond the generic 'search' verb.

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 implies its usage as a search tool over the PitchBook fund catalog, but it does not state when to prefer it over alternatives such as facets or item lookups, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternative tools. The use case is implied by the name and the 'search' phrasing, but no explicit guidance is given.

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