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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the flat 5-point cost per successful run and the breadth of returned data (funding rounds, acquisitions, IPOs, news). No pagination or limit behavior is described, keeping it short of 5.

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 tightly-packed sentences with zero filler: the purpose and payload are front-loaded, followed by the cost note. Every clause 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned content categories, and annotations cover the safety profile. Only minor gaps remain (no pagination or size limits), so it is nearly complete for a read-only, single-parameter tool.

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% and the single parameter is fully documented with a concrete example URL in the schema. The phrase "by URL or id token" merely restates the schema, adding no syntax or format detail beyond it, so the 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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ("Get one country startup landscape from Tracxn") and enumerates the payload (totals, companies, investors, funding, acquisitions, IPOs, news), which clearly sets it apart from company/investor/sector siblings. It never names a sibling tool, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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 resource scope ("one country startup landscape") implies when this tool is appropriate, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement and no mention of alternatives such as run_tracxn_sectors or run_tracxn_companies. Usage must be inferred from the resource rather than stated.

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