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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely new operational context by stating the cost model ('1 point per returned record') and enumerating the record fields returned (name, city, tags, founding year, logo, link). This is meaningful beyond what the structured fields provide, though it omits any note on result-set limits behavior.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler; the search scope and the country/keyword choice are front-loaded. The trailing '1 point per returned record' is useful but sits at the end where it is easy to miss.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by listing the fields each record contains, which is the key missing piece. Pagination and limits are covered by the schema, so an agent has enough to call the tool correctly; only the exclusion between country and keyword is left implicit.

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%, with country, keyword, max_items and start_page each documented in the schema itself (including the 250 cap and the 25 default). The description restates the country/keyword examples but adds no new semantics such as whether the two parameters are mutually exclusive. Baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Search the EU-Startups startup database') plus the two supported query modes (country category or keyword). It is clearly distinguishable from run_eustartups_investors_search and run_eustartups_directory_categories by resource and by verb, though it never explicitly names those siblings.

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 line 'Provide a country or a keyword' implies the two valid invocation modes and the example values ('german-startups', 'ai') show format. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not, and no routing to the category-listing sibling that would tell an agent how to discover valid country slugs.

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