Get Company Funding Record

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description discloses meaningful runtime behavior: it requires an APIFY_TOKEN, consumes credits per call, caches successful lookups for seven days, only populates amounts on exact entity matches, and sends near matches to related_entity columns. It also explains that legal filings and press releases are deliberately kept distinct via source_of_record. This is far more than the annotations provide.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose and sources, result shape and source_of_record logic, exact-match rules, exclusions, and auth/cost implications. It is front-loaded with the most important facts and avoids filler.

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 output schema, the description explains what the returned row looks like, how numbers are attributed, how matching works, what happens with near matches, and what credentials are needed. Combined with the detailed parameter descriptions, an agent has enough context to call the tool correctly and interpret the result safely.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds semantic value beyond the schema by explaining exact-match behavior after corporate suffix stripping and why a near match must never be summed into a total. It also clarifies the conceptual difference between 'source_of_record' values, which helps an agent interpret the company_name and sources parameters correctly.

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: 'Return a company's funding record from PRIMARY sources: SEC EDGAR Form D filings, UK Companies House registrations and press coverage.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from generic databases by saying 'Not Crunchbase and not a resold database,' and it explains the source-of-record concept that defines the tool.

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 gives explicit when-not guidance ('Not Crunchbase and not a resold database') and explains the tradeoff between authoritative regulatory filings and fresher press coverage. The parameter descriptions add concrete decision rules: choose 'regulatory' when a number must be defensible and 'all' when recency matters more. This tells an agent exactly how to route its choice.

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