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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=true) by disclosing credit cost (5 credits), one-profile-per-domain rule, account requirement, content moderation (gambling/adult hidden), auto logo fetch, and 400 error behavior with suggestions. These are exactly the operational traits an agent needs.

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?

Front-loads purpose and required input, then layers constraints. However, it reads as a choppy run of short fragments (e.g., 'Upgrade is optional later.') that could be grouped more tightly; most sentences still earn their place.

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, error format, domain limits, moderation, and account requirements well. It does not describe the success response shape, but the input-side guidance is otherwise thorough.

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 58%, and the description compensates for key fields: website as the sole required input, prose style rules (third person, no listicles, no HTML/markdown), and that logo_url is fetched and stored automatically. It leaves several params (hq_city, socials, founded_date) undocumented, so it is not fully compensating.

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 startup profile) and the minimal input (a website is enough), which cleanly separates it from siblings like update_startup or submit_investor. An agent can identify the operation and the resource without opening the 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?

Clearly states the condition for use (a website alone suffices; name/description/sectors optional) and the free-plan fallback when only a URL is sent. It does not, however, name alternative tools (e.g., update_startup for edits) or state explicit when-not-to-use conditions.

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