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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds meaningful context beyond that, notably that call_through_startuphub consumes your StartupHub key and credits, which is a cost/billing trait not expressed in the schema or 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 tight sentences with zero filler: the first states scope, the second enumerates return fields and highlights the actionable call_through_startuphub URL. Front-loaded and dense, with every clause carrying information.

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 enumerating exactly what each result contains (endpoint, spec URL, auth type, price per call, operations/tools/models/skills, call_through_startuphub). Combined with a fully documented 3-parameter schema and read-only annotations, an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the response.

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%, including an enum explanation for every kind value and a default for limit, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds nothing about how query is matched (semantic vs keyword vs company name) or how kind interacts with the returned corpus, so 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 pairs the verb 'Find' with specific resources (APIs, MCP servers, AI agents) and names the source (StartupHub), plus enumerates return fields. It implicitly separates itself from call_api by describing call_through_startuphub as the execution path, though it never names that sibling directly.

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?

Use is only implied — an agent can infer this is the discovery step before call_api, but the description never states when to use it versus search_startups, find_matches, or other lookup siblings, nor does it give any when-not guidance.

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