Screen Companies That Must Raise Capital

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the tool is safe. The description goes beyond by explaining the default threshold (6 months), sorting behavior (by urgency), and the estimation basis (current burn rate). No contradictions with annotations.

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 cover purpose and use cases with zero wasted words. The critical information (defaults, use cases) is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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 the presence of annotations, output schema, and 100% schema coverage, the description is complete. It explains the tool's purpose, default behavior, sorting, and use cases, leaving no gaps for effective invocation.

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?

All 4 parameters have descriptions in the schema, but the description adds value by specifying defaults (maxMonths=6, limit=25) and the sorting logic. This enhances agent understanding beyond the schema.

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 specific verb ('Find') and resource ('companies with imminent capital raise needs') and clearly explains the screening criteria (cash runway <6 months, sorted by urgency). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'screen_companies' by specifying a concrete financial metric and use case.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool ('identifying distressed companies, imminent dilution situations, or potential financing catalysts') but does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternative tools. A clear usage context is provided, but exclusions are absent.

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