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

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint/destructiveHint/openWorldHint, the barrier is lower, and the description adds real value beyond them: result ordering ('sorted by StartupHub score, highest first'), paging behavior, and an authentication requirement. It does not describe rate limits or return shape, keeping it at 4.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the resource scope, then ordering, then prerequisite. The 'Page with offset' sentence is mildly redundant given the offset parameter's schema description, but nothing is bloated.

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?

For a read-only search tool with full schema coverage, no output schema needed, and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description covers scope, ordering, paging, and the account prerequisite. It would be a 5 only if it addressed when to use this versus the person-lookup siblings.

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 all seven parameters are already documented in the schema; the baseline is 3. The description echoes 'Page with offset' but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema supplies.

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 (search) and a precisely bounded resource (founders, executives, board members, key team members), which an agent can distinguish from search_startups/search_investors/search_domains. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling tools it is not, 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 description implies the search context ('founders, executives...') and states a prerequisite ('Needs a free StartupHub.ai account'), which is genuine usage guidance. However, it never says when to prefer this over search_investors, get_person_by_email, or list_startup_team, leaving the routing to inference.

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