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

With readOnlyHint/destructiveHint/openWorldHint already covering the safety profile, the description adds real value: it discloses the exact fields returned, that primary_email is gated by plan tier, and that a free account is required. It omits pagination/rate-limit behavior, but the added access and content context is substantive.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the return scope, then fields, then use cases and prerequisites. Each sentence carries information, though the field enumeration is slightly list-heavy.

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?

No output schema exists, so listing the returned fields is valuable and largely covers the return shape. Plan-tier gating and the account requirement are also disclosed. Remaining minor gaps (pagination, slug format) keep it short of 5.

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 single 'slug' parameter is neither described in the schema nor clarified in the description ('for a startup' is too vague to tell an agent whether slug is a domain, name, or ID). The description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('Returns founders, current team, and board members for a startup, split by role') and even enumerates the returned fields. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_startup (company record) or search_people (cross-company people search).

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 three concrete use cases (build org-charts, identify decision-makers for outreach, enrich a startup record), which conveys the intended context. It doesn't name an alternative tool or state when not to use it, but the usage context is clear.

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