Model multi-tranche / extension rounds

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false), and the description adds genuine behavioral context: priced rounds convert outstanding instruments, tranche closes are handled at fixed price or valuation, and the output is each step plus the final cap table vs. start. That is real process and result disclosure beyond the structured fields, consistent with the read-only annotation.

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 dense sentences with no filler, front-loaded on the core action, followed by the return contract. The long parenthetical clause lists are slightly cramped but every clause carries semantic weight.

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 only two required params, both fully schema-documented, and no output schema, the description closes the important gaps: it explains the return shape ('each step and the final cap table vs start') and how events interact. Only the when-to-use routing to siblings is left implicit.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds interpretation the schema does not: what each event type means (e.g. SAFE extensions at different caps, priced rounds converting outstanding instruments, milestone tranches) and the capTable's 'vs start' comparison. This meaningfully enriches the otherwise terse event-type hints.

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 specific verb+resource ('Apply a sequence of events in order') and enumerates the event families handled (SAFEs, notes, priced rounds, tranches). This clearly separates it from the single-operation siblings like model_priced_round and safe_ownership, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

'Apply a sequence of events in order' implies you use this when you have multiple sequential events rather than a single conversion, which is an implied usage rather than an explicit one. It never says when to prefer this over model_priced_round or the safe_* tools, so the routing signal is only inferable.

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