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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: it returns an error when nothing matches, lists the full set of returned fields (eligibility gates, expiry, how to claim, application status, last verified, links, alternatives, category guide), and explicitly states it is read-only. This goes beyond the annotations by detailing the response contents and error behavior.

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 description is a single dense paragraph that front-loads the core purpose and usage, then lists the return contents. It is somewhat long but every sentence earns its place by covering usage, return fields, error behavior, and read-only status. The structure could be improved with bullet points or shorter sentences, but it is not bloated.

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 read-only lookup tool with 2 optional parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains how to invoke it, what it returns in detail, what happens on error, and how it relates to sibling tools. An agent has everything needed to select and call it correctly.

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 both parameters (name and slug) with examples. The description adds context on how the parameters relate to the other tools (slug comes from details_url) and when to use name vs slug, which is helpful but not a major addition 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?

The description clearly states the tool returns the full terms of one startup program, with a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('full terms of one startup program'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly mentioning find_startup_perks and search_startup_perks and how to use them together.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool: after find_startup_perks or search_startup_perks by passing the slug, or with a program/provider name when the user asks about one program. It also provides an example and notes that an error should trigger search_startup_perks, giving clear routing guidance.

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