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

Annotations already flag this as a non-read-only, open-world write. The description layers on behavior beyond that: it costs 5 credits, lists the person on the free plan immediately, requires an account, and has a conditional field requirement. That is meaningful mutation/access context the annotations do not convey.

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?

Six short front-loaded sentences covering purpose, effect, requirements, and cost with zero filler. The most decision-relevant facts lead.

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 10-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, it covers the key prerequisites, cost, and immediate-listing behavior. What it omits (failure/duplicate handling, response shape) is minor against the annotation coverage of its write semantics.

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%, and the description repeats the either/or requirement for current_title and linkedin_url plus the third-person bio rule, all of which the schema already documents. The undescribed parameters (city, country, github_url, twitter_url, website_url) get no help, so it adds marginal value beyond the schema.

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?

It states a specific verb and resource ("Submit a new person profile") and scopes the entity type (founder, executive, board member). The word "new" implicitly distinguishes it from sibling update_person. It stops short of naming alternatives explicitly, but the purpose is unmistakable.

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?

It gives real preconditions an agent needs before calling: requires either current_title or linkedin_url, needs a free StartupHub.ai account, and costs 5 credits. It does not name a competing sibling (e.g., update_person for existing records), so it falls just short of full when/when-not guidance.

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