get_capital_receiver

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. 'Get' clearly implies a read-only lookup and the listed content categories are helpful, but the description does not disclose error behavior, authorization requirements, or whether the returned data is partial or complete. It is not misleading, but it is minimal.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action, resource, and lookup key, then lists the main content areas. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary elaboration.

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 one-parameter detail-fetch tool with no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it names the lookup key and the data domains returned. It could be slightly richer around return shape or failure behavior, but the core calling context is covered.

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 description coverage is 100% and the input schema already explains that uuid is 'The entity UUID (profile UUID from a list result).' The description only repeats 'by UUID' and adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and names the resource ('capital receiver (company) detail by UUID'), with an enumerated content list: financials, cap table, investors, deals and news. It is distinguishable from sibling getters like get_person and get_capital_allocator by the receiver/company framing, though it does not explicitly contrast them.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_capital_receivers for finding UUIDs or get_capital_allocator for the opposite party. It only implies use when a UUID is already available, without saying so explicitly.

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