search_capital_allocators

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'List/filter' and does not explicitly mention that the operation is read-only, describe pagination or default limits, or note how filters are forwarded to the API. 'List/filter' implies a read operation, but the description adds little beyond the schema.

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 with no filler. The parenthetical definition of capital allocators is useful and every phrase earns its place.

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 schema thoroughly documents all five parameters, including the nested filter tree, which covers most invocation needs. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description omits behavioral context, output-shape expectations, and sibling-tool differentiation, making it minimally viable but incomplete.

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?

The input schema has 100% parameter coverage, with meaningful descriptions for limit, offset, search, filters, and ordering, including operators and an example for the nested filters object. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, so it earns the baseline score.

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-resource pair ('List/filter capital allocators') and clarifies the domain with a parenthetical defining the resource as investors (VC/PE firms, corporates, family offices). It is clear, but it does not distinguish this tool from the closely named sibling 'search_investors', so it misses the top score.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_investors, search_capital_receivers, or get_capital_allocator. The only usage signal is implied by the verb 'List/filter'; there are no exclusions, prerequisites, or routing hints.

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