No-Code Exits

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavior. It mentions the output fields and the default behavior when date is omitted, which is useful. It does not disclose potential limitations (e.g., availability of historical issues, pagination, or error handling), but the tool is clearly a read operation and the description provides sufficient baseline 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 sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists the output fields, then adds the parameter hint. No redundant wording; every element 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?

The tool is simple with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description covers the return content (fields) and the parameter behavior. It does not discuss edge cases like invalid dates or availability, but for a straightforward retrieval tool this is largely complete. Minor gaps prevent a 5.

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 schema already documents the 'date' parameter with format, and coverage is 100%. The description adds meaningful extra semantics by explaining that omitting the date retrieves the latest issue, which is not in the schema. This exceeds the baseline of 3 for high coverage.

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 what the tool does: retrieves startups for sale from a specific Daily Picks issue, listing the fields returned (name, price, MRR, multiple, deal score, angle). It identifies the resource (No-Code Exits Daily Picks) but does not explicitly contrast with sibling search tools, so it's clear but lacks explicit differentiation.

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 includes a usage hint about omitting the date for the latest issue, which guides parameter use. However, it does not state when to choose this tool over the sibling search tools (search_exit_stories, search_no_code_tools) or any exclusions, leaving the selection context implicit.

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?

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the shape of the returned information ('what each does and whether it needs a member key'), but says nothing about pagination, result limits, or auth requirements for listing.

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 with no filler; every clause ('what each does', 'whether it needs a member key') adds information.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description still conveys what the listing returns and the key distinguishing field (member key requirement). For a zero-parameter list tool this is close to complete, missing only volume/pagination expectations.

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 zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is no parameter syntax the description needs to compensate for.

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 ('List') and resource ('skills') and scopes it to 'AI and No-Code Exits skills an agent can run or install'. That is clear enough to distinguish it from the sibling search/listing tools, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling it differs from.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus get_daily_picks, search_exit_stories, or search_no_code_tools. The phrase 'an agent can run or install' hints at a browse/discovery use case but no conditions or exclusions are given.

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 of behavioral disclosure, but it only lists content types and says nothing about how search behaves, whether it is read-only, how results are ordered, or pagination. Knowing it is a search tool is helpful, but the description does not add meaningful behavioral context beyond that.

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, tight sentence that communicates the core subject and the three story dimensions without filler. It could be more directive, but it earns its place and is easy to parse.

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 two-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description provides enough domain context to understand the kind of results, but it omits usage guidance and behavioral details. It is adequate but leaves the agent to infer too much about when and how to use it.

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%, with both 'query' and 'limit' already documented. The description adds useful context about the nature of the data (built product, tools, sale price), but it does not explain param semantics beyond what the schema already 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 clearly identifies the resource as founder exit stories and specifies the key content dimensions: what was built, which tools were used, and the sale price. It is distinguishable from sibling tools by subject matter, though it lacks an explicit imperative verb and relies on the tool name for the actual action word 'search'.

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 the tool is for finding founder exit stories, but it does not state when to use it versus siblings like get_daily_picks or search_no_code_tools. There are no explicit criteria, prerequisites, or exclusions, so the agent must infer usage from the domain label alone.

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 hints at result content (purpose, pricing, learning curve), but says nothing about ranking, pagination, result count behavior, or whether the search is fuzzy or exact. For a no-annotation read tool this is under-disclosed, though it is not misleading.

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 with no filler; every clause adds information about what is searched and what comes back.

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 two-parameter search with no output schema, the description covers the domain and result facets but omits pagination/limit guidance beyond the schema default and gives no basis for choosing it over the sibling search tools. Adequate but with visible gaps.

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%: 'query' is documented as tool name or category and 'limit' includes its default. The description adds no syntax, matching, or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 gives a specific verb ('Search') and a specific resource ('AI and No-Code Exits tool directory') and even names the result facets (purpose, pricing, learning curve). It is clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling search_exit_stories, which an agent could easily confuse with a directory search.

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 statement, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as search_exit_stories or list_skills. The agent must infer routing from the resource name alone.

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