funding_search

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing billing behavior ($0.02 per record after 100 free/month, empty result sets are free) and exact pagination semantics (pass `next_cursor` back verbatim; null means exhausted). The annotations already cover read-only/non-destructive safety, so this is pure added value.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then cost, then pagination, then filter advice. Every sentence carries distinct, actionable information with no filler.

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 an 11-parameter, annotation-covered search tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, cost, pagination, and filtering strategy, which is most of what an agent needs. It stops short of describing returned record fields or an example result shape, the one remaining gap given there is no output 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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds real semantic value on top by specifying cursor round-trip behavior and the cost trade-off between filters and `limit`. It does not clarify the semantics of the filter parameters themselves (e.g., `round` values), keeping it from a 5.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Search funding rounds") plus the covered categories (venture rounds, debt, grants, IPOs) and the default ordering (newest announcement first). An agent can distinguish this from the retrieval-by-id sibling funding_get without opening either schema.

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?

Gives concrete operational guidance: it explains pagination via `cursor`/`next_cursor` and advises narrowing with filters before raising `limit`. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool or a when-not condition (e.g., use funding_get for a known round), so it falls short of a 5.

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