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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds meaningful extra context: 'Requires Growth or higher' (permission level), 'unsaved' (no persistence), and 'this does not create grants or offers' (side-effect clarity). This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 two sentences with no filler. The core action and scope are front-loaded, followed by permission and side-effect constraints. Every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only modeling tool with a rich output schema, the description covers purpose, permission, side effects, and methodology. It does not explain parameter roles, but the schema provides structure and defaults. It also does not explicitly differentiate from cap_table.simulate_raise or dilution_preview, which are closely related siblings, leaving a small selection ambiguity.

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%, so the description must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. It gives only vague hints ('engineering-hire' implies engineer_count/level, 'stage benchmarks' implies company_stage) and says nothing about project_id or cap_table_id. The schema provides only titles and enums, so the agent is left to infer the meaning of most 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 states a specific verb ('Read') and a concrete resource ('unsaved engineering-hire equity and runway estimates'), and clarifies it does not create grants or offers. This distinguishes it from mutation siblings like cap_table.create_stakeholder and cap_table.update_stakeholder, and from simulation tools like cap_table.simulate_raise by narrowing to hiring-impact modeling.

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: use this for read-only hiring-impact estimates, requires Growth or higher, and does not create grants/offers. It implies when-not-to-use (when you need to create or modify grants), but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state exclusion conditions, so it stops short of exhaustive routing guidance.

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