run_pitchbook_profiles_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It does add genuinely useful context beyond the schema: results are 'public profile previews' (i.e. truncated data, not full profiles) and cost '1 point per returned record', which is a meaningful cost/budget signal. It still omits pagination behavior, authentication requirements, and how previews differ from the dedicated company/investor tools.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and the cost note is a useful trailing fact. Minor waste in the colon list of return fields, which reads like output documentation in a description slot.

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 4-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers the resource, the profile types, and the cost, but leaves pagination semantics (start_page/max_items interplay), result limits, and the relationship to the dedicated PitchBook company/investor tools unaddressed.

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 keyword, type, max_items, and start_page are already documented in the schema; baseline is 3. The description's list of fields ('name, type, profile id and link') actually describes outputs rather than inputs and adds no syntax or format detail for any parameter.

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?

States a specific verb (Search) and resource (PitchBook public profile previews) and enumerates the return fields (name, type, profile id and link). It is clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from nearby siblings such as run_pitchbook_companies, run_pitchbook_investors, or the generic run_search, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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 no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternative. With run_pitchbook_companies and run_pitchbook_investors in the sibling list, the agent gets no signal about which to pick for a given profile type even though this tool's own type enum covers all three.

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