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.