pitchbook_limited_partner

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 clearly states that numeric figures and full lists are gated behind a subscription and 'come through as empty cells rather than being fabricated', which prevents agent hallucination. It also normalizes missing FAQ sections as a non-error condition. This provides valuable context about output behavior and limitations.

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 compact and information-dense, covering purpose, content, limitations, and usage in five sentences. The opening 'PitchBook limited partner profile.' is slightly redundant with the tool name, but the rest of the sentences all contribute meaningful details. Overall, well-structured 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?

Given the tool's simple schema (2 optional params), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is quite complete: it explains what content is returned, what is missing due to paywall, how missing content appears, and the parameter constraint. It does not describe the exact return structure, but the listed content types give a good preview. It is adequate for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 parameters are already documented. The description adds an important semantic constraint: 'Pass exactly one of id or url', which is not explicit in the schema since both are optional. This extra clarification helps the agent avoid invalid invocations.

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 a PitchBook limited partner profile and specifies the content types (overview, description, contact, fund commitment preview). It explicitly names the entity type, distinguishing it from sibling tools like pitchbook_company, pitchbook_fund, and pitchbook_investor. The verb 'Returns' and resource are precise.

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 usage for fetching free/teaser profile data and notes that paid figures appear as empty cells, suggesting this is for teaser content. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., search tools for finding LPs, or the full datasets_pitchbook_limited_partners_item for complete data). No exclusions or alternative tool names are provided.

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