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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that results are ranked by score ("highest-scored"), but says nothing about what a score is, how ties/ordering work, or what the result payload contains.

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 parenthetical examples; every clause carries filter information. It is dense without being padded.

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 3-param, no-required-param tool with no output schema, the definition leaves open the return shape, the default limit (and the 20 cap), and whether filters AND together. Adequate but with clear gaps an agent would have to discover by calling.

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 only 33%, and the description compensates well for `category` by showing that it accepts a use case, a tool name ("n8n"), or an industry, plus the country filter. `limit` remains unexplained in both schema and description, leaving that one gap.

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?

Names a specific resource (agencies) and a specific selection rule (highest-scored on Cofounderbase), with concrete filter examples. It implies ranking rather than keyword search, which separates it from search_agencies, but it never names the sibling explicitly.

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?

"for a use case ..., a tool ... and/or a country" implies the filters can be combined or used alone, which is useful, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus search_agencies or get_agency, and no guidance on what happens when no filters are passed.

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