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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, and the description goes well beyond them: it discloses a 5-credit cost with per-tier daily quotas, that rows are found-or-created in the database (a real side effect), the free-account requirement, and the return payload. That is rich behavioral context not derivable from structured fields.

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?

Front-loads the core mechanic ('Prompt → curated startup list') and keeps each subsequent sentence purposeful (workflows, cost, returns, auth). It is dense and slightly long, but nearly 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 still explains the return shape (id/name/slug/logo plus a 'created' count), the credit/quota model, and the account prerequisite. Nothing material an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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%, so the schema already documents limit, prompt, and pasted_list with examples. The description reinforces the prompt-vs-pasted_list choice but adds little syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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+resource ('generate a curated startup list') and explains the mechanism: a prompt runs a Google-grounded search, parses results, and finds-or-creates matching rows. It distinguishes itself from sibling search_startups by emphasizing list generation and DB row creation, and names the downstream /lists/submit step.

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?

Enumerates three concrete workflows (portfolio page from prompt, extract companies from raw text via pasted_list, scheduled refresh via cron) and explicitly states when to use 'pasted_list' instead of 'prompt'. This is the when-to-use routing an agent needs.

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