funding_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the external sources searched and the 'candidate' nature of extracted facts, signaling that results may be unverified or partial. 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?

A single sentence that is concise and front-loaded. It packs the essential purpose, sources, and output type without wasted words. Ideal structure.

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 tool with a nested context parameter and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It explains what is searched and what is extracted, but doesn't detail return format, edge cases (e.g., company not found), or how to use the optional fields. Annotations help, but the absence of output schema leaves a gap.

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 0%, meaning the tool description does not explain the parameters. It mentions 'company' but not the required 'context' object or its fields (date, country, listed, etc.). The schema has some field descriptions, but the description fails to compensate for the low coverage, leaving the agent without guidance on optional parameters.

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 is specific: it names the exact data sources (Crunchbase, Tofler, MCA, OpenCorporates), the target (a company), and the outputs (funding rounds, investors, valuation mentions, candidate round/amount facts). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like financial_statements or company_profile.

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 implies usage for researching funding history, but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions. It doesn't mention alternatives or conditions like 'use for unlisted companies only' or 'use company_profile for overview'. The context is clear but not contrasted with siblings.

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