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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=true), so the description adds substantial operational context: it costs 5 credits, publishes immediately on the free plan, requires an account, and is deduped by website domain or name+country. These are exactly the side effects an agent needs before invoking a write tool.

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?

Five short sentences, all load-bearing, with the core action front-loaded and constraints, cost, dedup and auth stacked in descending priority. No filler or restatement 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?

For a 12-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers cost, account prerequisite, publish behavior, dedup rules and content formatting. It stops short of saying what the call returns (investor ID/URL) or whether submissions are moderated, which would close the remaining gap.

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 only 50% across 12 parameters, so the description must compensate. It usefully documents the 'description' field rules (third-person prose, no HTML/markdown, no listicle titles) and names the dedup keys (website/name/country), but leaves city, founded_date, socials, stage_focus and sector_focus semantics entirely to the schema entries.

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 ('Submit a new investor profile') with scope clarification ('VC, angel, accelerator, etc.'), and positions itself against the sibling submit_startup. An agent can distinguish this from update_investor or search_investors without opening a schema.

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?

Usage is implied by 'new investor profile' and a prerequisite is stated (free StartupHub.ai account), plus the framing 'same as submit_startup' hints at the parallel flow. However, there is no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternative guidance, e.g. no pointer to update_investor for edits or search_investors to check existence first.

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