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

Beyond the annotations (mutation, non-destructive, open-world), the description discloses the moderation workflow ('lands as status=pending; admin must approve before public'), the credit cost, and the account requirement. These are exactly the side-effect and auth details 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?

Roughly six sentences, each earning its place: examples, entity semantics, optional content, moderation outcome, cost, lookup tools, and account requirement. Everything is front-loaded with no filler.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description covers outcome (pending moderation), cost, auth, and preparation steps. It could say more about validation failures or whether startup/investor/people slugs can be mixed freely, which keeps it from a 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 100%, so the schema already documents all nine parameters including slug format and lookup hints. The description reinforces that lists are collections of existing startups/investors/people and that slugs must be supplied, but adds little syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 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+resource ('Submit a new editorial list') with two concrete examples, and clarifies it is a curation of existing entities rather than a generation. An agent can distinguish this from sibling generators like generate_startup_list and submit_startup from the description alone.

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 clear preconditions and guidance: look up slugs with search_startups / search_investors / search_people first, need a free account, costs 5 credits. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the nearest alternative (generate_startup_list, which would produce rather than submit a list), so it stops short of a full 5.

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