search_private_funds

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the search intent. It does not explicitly say whether the operation is read-only, describe the return format, or mention any limitations such as pagination or rate limits. The implied read-only nature of 'search' is insufficient without explicit confirmation.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the core action and resource. Every word is meaningful with no unnecessary detail, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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?

The tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description is only one sentence. It does not explain what the results look like, how filtering works, or when to choose this tool over related search tools, leaving significant gaps in context for the agent.

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 57%, leaving crd, sec_number, and control_person undocumented in the schema. The description adds no details about these parameters or how they relate to the search, so it fails to compensate for the gaps in the input schema.

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 states the tool searches private-fund ownership/control relationships, specifically on Form ADV. This precise verb+resource combination distinguishes it from broader search tools like search_filings and full_text_search, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_private_fund_stats or search_advisers. There is no mention of use cases, exclusions, or comparison to sibling tools, leaving the agent without selection criteria.

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