Option pool shuffle comparison

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, closed-world). The description adds genuinely new behavior: it runs the round twice along a single axis and reports dilution allocation across holders. That goes beyond the annotations, though it doesn't disclose output shape or how the two scenarios are returned.

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 tight sentences: the comparison and its outputs come first, the required input second. No filler, well front-loaded.

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?

For a nested, complex modeling tool with no output schema and low schema coverage, the description is adequate but thin. It names the required input but doesn't describe how the two scenarios' results are returned or what a caller should supply in capTable/round beyond the schema.

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 only 20%, so the description must compensate, and it does flag that round.targetPoolPercent is required (notably the schema does not mark this nested field required). However, the other four params and the nested capTable/round structures are left to the schema, so compensation is partial.

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 states a concrete verb ('Run the same round') plus the exact scenario axis being compared (pool top-up pre-money vs post-money) and even names the outputs (price per share, who bears dilution). This is clearly distinct from siblings like safe_conversion_price or model_priced_round.

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?

It implies the use case (comparing pool-timing scenarios) and names the precondition round.targetPoolPercent, but never says when to prefer this over model_priced_round or model_round_sequence. No explicit alternatives or when-not guidance is provided.

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