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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It hints at the result content (funding, rounds, investors, founders) but says nothing about pagination, result limits, credit/cost implications, or how the account-scoped only_new dedup behaves. For a 12-parameter search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 front-loaded sentence that leads with the verb and resource and then enumerates the output facets; every clause carries information. It is slightly dense as a run-on list, but there is no filler.

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 search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description conveys the search model and returned fields but omits result-set behavior (paging, max_results interaction, ordering) and any cost/permission context. Adequate as a minimum-viable description, not complete.

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 42%, but the description conceptually covers most of the undocumented parameters: 'what they do' maps to keywords/industry, 'where' to location/country/hq_country, 'startups or investors' to entity_type, funding bounds to min/max_funding_usd, and 'optionally founders' to include_key_people. It stops short of naming parameters, so syntax and defaults remain schema-only.

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 (Finds) and resource (startups or investors on Crunchbase) plus the search axes (what they do, where) and the returned data (funding, rounds, investors, founders). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling lookup_crunchbase_companies, which is a name lookup rather than a discovery search, though that sibling is not named explicitly.

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 when-to-use guidance: nothing says when to prefer this over lookup_crunchbase_companies, get_pitchbook_profiles, or find_creators, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. The search-by-keyword framing implies usage, but the agent must infer it.

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