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.