search_capital_receivers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the read-only nature via 'List/filter' and adds the geographic scope, but it omits behavioral traits such as default ordering, maximum page size, and response shape. These are meaningful gaps for a tool that lists data, though the described capabilities match expectations for a search endpoint.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler. The first sentence front-loads the verb, resource, and scope; the second succinctly enumerates capabilities. Every word 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?

Given five parameters, a nested filter object, and no output schema, the description adequately summarizes capability but leaves gaps: it does not mention default ordering or limits, whether the Southeast Asia constraint is a fixed filter, or what the response shape looks like. The schema covers filter syntax, so this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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%, so the schema fully documents all five parameters, including a detailed example for the nested filters object. The description only generically references 'filters, search, ordering and pagination', adding no syntax or constraint details beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List/filter capital receivers', and disambiguates the resource with '(funded companies / startups)'. The regional scope 'in Southeast Asia' adds further specificity, and the resource itself clearly differentiates it from siblings like get_capital_receiver (singular fetch) and search_capital_allocators (different entity type).

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 implies this is a query/search tool by listing 'filters, search, ordering and pagination', but it never explicitly states when to choose this over alternatives. No mention of 'use get_capital_receiver for a single entity' or exclusion conditions exists, leaving the agent to infer usage from the resource name and siblings.

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