pitchbook_investor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It transparently discloses that the tool returns only free/teaser content and that gated numeric figures appear as empty cells (not fabricated). This is good disclosure of data limitations. It does not discuss authentication or rate limits, but for a read-only data tool this is adequate.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose and content, the second adds usage constraints and data limitations. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 explains the return content in detail (overview, description, contact/HQ, preview of investments, exits, co-investors) and addresses the empty cell behavior. This is fairly complete for a simple data retrieval tool, though it could add more about the structure of the response.

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% (both parameters described). The description adds value by clarifying that exactly one of `id` or `url` must be passed and that the URL is an absolute https URL. This goes beyond the schema descriptions, which are simple labels.

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 identifies the tool as returning the free/teaser content of a PitchBook investor profile, listing specific sections (overview, description, contact/HQ, preview of investments, exits, co-investors). It uses a specific verb 'Returns' and resource 'PitchBook investor profile', distinguishing it from other PitchBook tools like company and fund profiles.

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 states to pass exactly one of `id` or `url`, which is a clear usage instruction. It also warns that gated figures appear as empty cells, setting expectations. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool compared to siblings like `pitchbook_company` or `pitchbook_fund`, which would improve guidance.

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