search_investors

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. 'Lookup / discovery' weakly signals a read-only search operation, but the description does not state whether results are aggregated across entities, whether there are auth or rate-limit concerns, or what the response shape is. This is too thin for an unannotated 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 with no filler and no redundant restatement of the tool name. It is concise and scannable, though it sacrifices substantive guidance for brevity.

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?

With 5 optional parameters, a complex nested filter object, no output schema, and no annotations, a one-line scope statement is not enough. The description does not explain result composition, default behavior, or how this tool relates to the many sibling search tools, leaving an agent to infer too much.

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%, with limit, offset, search, filters, and ordering all documented inline. The tool description adds only entity-scope context and no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 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 uses a clear verb-noun structure ('investor lookup / discovery') and names the specific entity scope: allocators, funds, and people. This differentiates it from the single-entity sibling tools like search_funds and search_people, though it does not explicitly name 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 phrase 'cross-entity' implies this tool should be used when searching across multiple investor-related entity types, which loosely separates it from single-entity siblings. However, it never explicitly states when to choose this tool over search_funds, search_people, or search_capital_allocators, nor does it give exclusions.

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