get_capital_allocator

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. The verb 'Get' clearly signals a read-only operation, and the description enumerates the returned response sections, which provides meaningful behavioral context. It does not discuss auth, rate limits, or error behavior, but these are less critical for a simple retrieval tool.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the verb, resource, key, and response contents without wasted words. It is concise yet informative.

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?

Despite having no annotations or output schema, the description adequately conveys what the tool returns by listing the key data categories. It lacks explicit notes on formatting, pagination, or error scenarios, but for a simple get-by-UUID tool with one parameter, the available context is sufficient.

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% and the single required parameter 'uuid' is already well documented in the schema ('The entity UUID (profile UUID from a list result)'). The description adds no new meaning beyond restating the lookup key, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('capital allocator (investor) detail') plus the retrieval key (UUID). It lists the included content areas (investments, AUM, commitments, financials, cap table, funds, news), making it distinct from other entity getters like get_fund or get_person, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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?

Usage is implied through 'by UUID': an agent should call this when it already has a UUID and wants a full detail view. There is no explicit guidance on when to use this instead of search_capital_allocators or get_capital_receiver, and no exclusion or alternative routing is mentioned.

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