funding_history

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

The annotations readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true adequately cover the read-only nature and possibility of incomplete data. The description adds that it 'extracts candidate facts,' which transparently indicates the output may be provisional. No behavior is hidden or contradicted.

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, well-structured sentence that lists the data sources and the type of information retrieved. It is concise, without unnecessary words, and directly conveys the tool's purpose.

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 description gives a good high-level overview but omits details about output format, potential limitations, or how the 'context' parameter should be used. Given the tool's multi-source nature and the absence of an output schema, a bit more context about expected results or edge cases would be beneficial.

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 top-level parameter 'context' has no description in the schema, and the tool description does not explain any of its nested properties (company, country, sector, etc.). While the schema provides descriptions for a few nested fields, the overall parameter semantics are poorly communicated, especially for a required object 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: it searches multiple named sources for funding rounds, investors, and valuation mentions, and extracts candidate facts. This distinguishes it from other tools that might provide general company profiles or financial statements.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_company or company_profile. There is no mention of prerequisites, scenarios, or comparison to sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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