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?

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 behavioral disclosure burden. It conveys the search scope and returned fields, and the verb 'search' implies a read-only operation, but it does not state result ordering, pagination, or any operational caveats.

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?

One sentence that front-loads the action and resource, with no filler or repetition. The result-content clause is informative and compact.

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, the description covers the main purpose and result fields, but with no output schema it does not explicitly say the response is a list or how results are ordered/limited beyond the schema default. That leaves minor but real 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 coverage is 100%: query is documented as 'Tool name or category' and limit as 'Max results, default 10'. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so it stays at the baseline 3.

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 identifies a clear action ('Search') and a specific resource ('No-Code Exits tool directory'), and it enumerates the result content (purpose, pricing, learning curve). It does not explicitly contrast sibling tools, so an agent must infer the distinction from the 'tool directory' scope.

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 gives enough context that an agent would use this to find tool information, but it never states when not to use it or names alternatives like search_exit_stories or get_daily_picks. The 'when to use' is only implied by the tool-directory phrasing.

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