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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/destructive/openWorld, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real value: a membership requirement, a data-quality caveat ('unreviewed'), and explicit limits ('no revenue or solo verdict'). These are behavioral facts an agent cannot get from the structured fields.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the access tier and the resource, then caveats. No filler, though cramming four distinct ideas into two sentences makes it slightly opaque.

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 5-param, no-output-schema read tool the description conveys the data sources and important caveats, but it leaves three parameters (focus, limit, language) undocumented and offers no guidance on result volume or ordering. Adequate but with clear 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 0%, so the description must carry the burden for 5 parameters. It only gestures at 'dates' and 'optional retained history' (loosely mapping to history) and the two sources; it says nothing about focus, limit, or language, leaving most parameters unexplained.

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 specific verb ('query') and concrete resources ('daily Show HN discussion samples and Product Hunt launches'), which is enough to distinguish it from the case-oriented siblings like search_startup_cases. It does not name any sibling explicitly, but the resource is distinct enough that an agent can route to it.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative named. The 'MEMBER:' prefix hints at an access tier but gives no guidance on when an agent should pick this radar over search_startup_cases or startup_preview. Usage must be inferred from the resource alone.

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