Signed Investors

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, and the description agrees with them. Beyond that, it adds two decision-critical disclosures: only public profiles are returned, and private profiles are indistinguishable from nonexistent ones — preventing the agent from concluding an investor doesn't exist from a not-found result. It also flags the non-obvious trait that the response includes similar investors.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: scope plus return enumeration, parameter provenance, and the private-profile caveat. The most decision-relevant clause is front-loaded, and no sentence repeats annotation or schema content.

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 one fully documented parameter and rich annotations, the main gap is the missing output schema, which the description compensates for by exhaustively enumerating the response fields. The login-source routing and the private-vs-nonexistent caveat round out everything an agent needs to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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%, and the schema already documents the login parameter including the optional leading '@'. The description adds value above the baseline by stating where valid login values come from (sibling search/list tools or a signed.com URL), which prevents the agent from fabricating or guessing logins.

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 precise verb-resource pair — fetching one investor's public Signed profile by login — and enumerates the returned content (bio, sectors, check size, pinned portfolio companies, pitch preferences, follower counts, similar investors). This scoping clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that enumerate or search collections rather than retrieve a single profile.

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?

Provides explicit workflow guidance by naming the login sources: search_investors, list_investors, or a signed.com/@login URL. However, it lacks an explicit 'use this instead of X when Y' exclusion against close siblings like list_investor_followers, so the contextual guidance is clear but not fully formalized.

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?

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the ranges are ordered 'smallest to largest' and include counts, providing behavioral detail beyond the annotations about ordering and data content.

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 clear sentence that front-loads the core purpose, then adds ordering and count details. Every element is informative with no redundancy.

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?

Given no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool returns and its relationship to other tools. An agent can correctly decide when to call this tool and what to expect.

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 has zero parameters, so there is no parameter information to add. Per the baseline for 0-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate. The description explains the output, which is the semantic content.

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 the tool returns check-size ranges, identifies them as the valid values for the check_size filter on specific tools, and includes ordering and count details. It is specific about the resource and how it relates to sibling tools, making it easily distinguishable.

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 explicitly mentions that these are the valid values for the check_size filter on list_investors and search_investors, telling the agent when this tool is useful. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context strongly implies its purpose.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description is not required to restate that. It adds the detail about alphabetical ordering and public-only filtering, which is useful but limited; it does not mention pagination behavior or potential edge cases. No contradiction between description and annotations.

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 concise (two sentences) and front-loads the core purpose. The sibling context is not explicitly mentioned but the description is efficient without fluff.

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 a simple paginated list with a single required parameter, and the schema covers pagination defaults. However, the description lacks explicit guidance on when to use it compared to the similar sibling 'list_investor_following', and there is no output schema to reduce ambiguity about the return structure.

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 covers all parameters with clear descriptions (page, per_page, login). The description does not add additional semantics beyond noting the login can be with or without '@', but this is already in the schema. Thus, 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 clearly states the tool lists public signed investors who follow a given investor, sorted alphabetically by name. It mentions the resource (investors/followers) and adds scoping ('public profiles only'), but does not explicitly distinguish it from the sibling 'list_investor_following' (which lists who an investor follows).

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 a clear context (public investors follow a given investor) but does not indicate when to use this tool versus the sibling 'list_investor_following' or others. The example reference to signed.com/@login/followers provides a familiar analogy but no explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description adds value beyond them by disclosing alphabetical ordering, the public-profile-only visibility rule, and the UI-equivalent behavior. It does not describe response shape or pagination behavior, but those are partially covered by the schema.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the resource and ordering, and the second adds the public-profile constraint plus a useful UI reference. No filler or redundant phrasing.

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 read-only list tool with a required login and pagination parameters already documented in the schema, the description covers the core behavioral contract well. The only notable gap is the lack of an explicit contrast with list_investor_followers, though the directionality is clear enough.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter-level meaning: it identifies login as 'the given investor' and mentions alphabetical ordering, but it does not materially improve on the schema.

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 states exactly what the tool does: it lists the public Signed investors a given investor follows, sorted alphabetically. The wording clearly indicates direction ('follows') and distinguishes it from the sibling list_investor_followers.

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 retrieving a specific investor's following list and clarifies that only public profiles appear. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over list_investor_followers or other sibling tools, nor does it state exclusions.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, and the description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: results are ordered by profile completeness, narrowed to one sector or one check size, and each result carries login, investment focus, check sizes, pinned portfolio companies, and pitch status. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three sentences with no filler: the first states the core purpose and ordering, the second summarizes the payload and relationship to get_investor, and the third routes to the alternative tool. Every sentence earns its place and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 list tool with four optional parameters and no output schema, the description is complete: it covers scope, filtering, ordering, result contents, and the sibling for targeted lookup. An agent has enough context to invoke it correctly and to know what the response will generally contain.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the schema already documents page, sector, per_page, and check_size. The description adds the semantic note that narrowing is to one sector or one check size, which is not stated in the schema. It doesn't need to repeat parameter syntax because the schema already does.

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 names a specific resource (Signed's public angel investor directory) and a specific action (browse), and adds concrete details: public profiles, ordering by completeness, and optional filters. It explicitly distinguishes itself from search_investors in the final sentence, so an agent can select it correctly without ambiguity.

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 last sentence gives an explicit routing rule: use search_investors when you have a name or keyword. The body clarifies that this tool is for browsing the directory without a specific target and can be narrowed by sector or check size, which is clear when-to-use context.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is established. The description adds behavioral value beyond annotations by disclosing that results include per-sector counts of public investors, a one-line description, example companies, and ordering by busiest sector first.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then packs the key output details (counts, descriptions, examples) and ordering into the remainder. No filler or repetition of annotation 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?

For a parameterless read-only reference tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what the response contains and how it is ordered. An agent can predict the tool's output and how to use it with the named sibling filters.

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 has zero parameters, and the input schema has no properties, so the description has no parameter semantics to clarify. The baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing for the description to add over the schema.

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 ('sectors an investor can list on their Signed profile') and specifies that it returns the valid sector filter values for list_investors and search_investors. It distinguishes the tool from sibling tools by framing it as the reference vocabulary behind their filters rather than an investor-list operation.

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 explicitly connects this tool to the sector filter on list_investors and search_investors, making the intended use clear: consult this before applying sector filters. It does not state when not to use it, but the relationship to the sibling tools is specific enough to guide selection.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's job is to add context beyond that. It does by stating 'Only public profiles are searched' and noting that sector names in queries also match investors listing that sector. This adds useful behavioral nuance without contradicting the annotations. No contradiction detected.

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, tightly written paragraph. It front-loads the primary purpose, then gives narrowing guidance and an alternative tool reference. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundancy or 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 read-only search tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential information: what is searched, what is excluded (non-public profiles), how to narrow results, and when to use an alternative. It does not need to explain return format since no output schema exists, and the pagination parameters are already in the schema. The description is complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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%, so all parameters are already documented. The description adds value by explaining how sector and check_size work as filters (narrowing hits) and by referencing list_sectors and list_check_sizes for the full valid sets. This goes beyond a bare schema description, so a 4 is warranted.

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 the tool searches Signed's public angel investor directory by keyword, and specifies the fields matched (name, login, bio, investment description, sector names/slugs). It also differentiates from the sibling list_investors by explicitly noting that list_investors is for browsing without a keyword, so an agent can immediately distinguish the two.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus list_investors ('use list_investors to browse a facet without a keyword') and how to narrow results ('Add sector or check_size to narrow the hits'). It also points to list_sectors and list_check_sizes for valid values, giving the agent a clear path to construct a correct query.

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