founderhood

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that only 'approved' listings are returned (a meaningful access constraint) and enumerates two returned fields plus one excluded field. It doesn't state what happens for unapproved/nonexistent slugs or any error behavior, so it adds real but partial behavioral context.

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?

Two tight sentences with the fetch scope front-loaded and the field-level caveats following. Every clause earns its 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 single-parameter read with no annotations, the description is adequate on success-case field visibility but silent on error/missing-record behavior and on the relationship to sibling tools, leaving gaps an agent would have to probe.

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 100% and the single slug parameter is already documented in the schema, so the description adds nothing new about the parameter. Baseline 3 is warranted.

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 (Fetch) and resource (listing) scoped to 'approved' and identified by URL slug. It's clearly a single-record lookup versus the sibling search_founders, though the differentiation is left implicit rather than naming the sibling.

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?

The description implies this is a retrieve-by-slug operation, which implies 'use when you already have a slug', but never explicitly states when to use this versus search_founders or what to do if the slug is unknown.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a real behavioral trait: only cities containing approved founder listings are included, and counts come back. It says nothing about ordering, pagination, or how 'approved' is determined, so meaningful gaps remain.

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?

A single sentence with zero padding, and the scoping constraint ('approved founder listings and counts') is front-loaded rather than buried. Every clause earns its 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 simple, parameterless read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (cities plus counts) and the filtering rule, which is what an agent needs to call it. Ordering and pagination behavior are the only unaddressed details.

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?

The tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a zero-parameter schema is 4. The description correctly offers no spurious parameter guidance.

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 ('List cities') plus a meaningful scope qualifier: only cities with approved founder listings, returned with counts. That is clearer than a bare enumeration. It does not name or exclude any sibling, so it falls short of 5.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, but the purpose of an unfiltered enumeration is largely self-evident and none of the siblings (get_founder, search_founders, submit_listing) overlap with listing cities. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden; it does disclose the scope restriction ('approved' only) and names two returned fields while explicitly excluding heard_from. However it says nothing about authentication, pagination, maximum result counts, or ordering, which matters for a search endpoint.

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 tight sentences: scope and filters first, then result contents, then the excluded field. Every clause carries information and nothing is padded.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey the return shape; it names only open_to_cofounder and cofounder_note and omits pagination, total counts, ordering, and how the zero-required-parameter case behaves (e.g., searching with no filters). Reasonable but incomplete for a 5-parameter discovery tool.

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 80%, so the schema already documents city, query, country, and open_to_cofounder semantics. The description only restates the filter dimensions in prose without adding matching behavior, wildcard support, or how filters combine (AND vs OR) beyond what the schema provides.

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?

The description names a specific verb (search) and resource (approved Founderhood listings) and enumerates the filter dimensions, which cleanly separates it from the single-item sibling get_founder and from list_cities/submit_listing. The 'approved' qualifier further narrows scope in a way an agent can act on.

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 the filter list, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over get_founder or list_cities, no note about combining filters, and no guidance on result limits or pagination. Adequate minimum-viable guidance, not routing guidance.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and discloses human review, validation and rate limits, founder consent, duplicate/under-review rejection behavior, and the conditional error slug. It does not specify actual rate-limit values or describe the success response, but it provides substantial mutation context.

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?

The submission purpose, behavior, and key field semantics are front-loaded, and the eligibility criteria are relevant rather than filler. The description is long and dense, but the length is justified by the number of disqualifying business types the agent must enforce.

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?

It is complete on business eligibility, review flow, consent, duplicate rejection, and a few optional field semantics, which is important for this mutation tool. However, with 13 parameters, low schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, it still leaves gaps around full parameter meaning and response behavior.

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 low at 23% across 13 parameters, so the description must compensate, and it only covers open_to_cofounder, cofounder_note, heard_from, and some city/country/website semantics. Many parameters such as category, email, twitter, linkedin, founder_name, and description length/format remain undocumented outside 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: "Submit a new business for human review." It clearly distinguishes this mutation/submission tool from the read-oriented siblings get_founder, list_cities, and search_founders.

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 explicit submission criteria and detailed when-not-to-submit exclusions, including duplicate listings, placeholder sites, trend generators, SEO-only sites, MLM/gambling/adult content, and platform-rule violations. This is unusually strong guidance for an agent deciding whether a business is eligible.

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