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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the credit cost relative to a sibling, the auth requirement, and the exact scope of returned data ('ONLY ...', 'plus HQ').

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 dense sentences, all front-loaded: what it returns first, then the cost/comparison, then the auth requirement. No filler or repetition of the title.

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 carries the burden of describing return contents — and it does so by enumerating emails, socials, and HQ fields. Cost, auth, and scope are all covered, leaving nothing essential for a correct invocation.

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% and the description never explains what 'slug' is or how to obtain it. However, with only a single, well-understood identifier parameter the gap is minor, so a mid-range score is appropriate.

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 (returns) and precisely enumerates the resource contents: contact/partnerships/press emails, social URLs, and HQ city/country. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_startup by noting it returns only a subset when you don't need the full row.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use condition ('when you don't need the full row') and names the alternative (get_startup) along with a cost rationale (1 db credit vs 1 profile credit). It also states the prerequisite of a free StartupHub.ai account.

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