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.