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

Annotations only give the generic write/open-world/no-destroy profile. The description adds non-obvious operational facts: a 5-credit cost, an account prerequisite, and ownership scope. It still omits whether resubmission is rejected, whether the event is moderated, or what confirmation is returned.

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, zero filler, and the core purpose leads. Cost and account requirements are appended where an agent will still read them.

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 an 11-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers cost, auth, and conditional fields, but leaves unclear how the target startup is identified (both startup_id and startup_slug are optional), and how deal-value fields (valuation vs consideration) differ.

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 coverage is 64%, so the schema carries most parameter meaning. The conditional requirements the description restates (acquirer_name for Acquisition/Merger; stock_exchange + ticker for IPO/SPAC) are already present in the schema field descriptions. It adds nothing about valuation, consideration, source_url, or the startup_id vs startup_slug choice.

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 (Announce) and a precisely enumerated resource (IPO/Acquisition/Merger/SPAC/Buyout/Closure) scoped to 'a startup you own'. This clearly separates it from submit_funding_round, submit_startup, and the other submit_* siblings.

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 real preconditions: you must own the startup, it costs 5 credits, and a free StartupHub.ai account is needed. It also says which transaction types need which fields. It does not, however, point to an alternative tool or state when this should not be used (e.g. duplicate exits, non-owned startups).

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