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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two useful behavioral facts: the default scope excludes company references, and relevance does not imply success probability. It does not mention the 'MEMBER:' access implication, result limits, or pagination 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?

Three tight, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The 'MEMBER:' prefix and the terse relevance caveat are slightly cryptic but cost little space.

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 6-parameter search tool with zero schema descriptions and no output schema, the description leaves most parameters unexplained and says nothing about result shape or limits. The read-only annotations cover safety, but the query surface remains largely undocumented.

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 0% across 6 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only hints at the scope default ('excludes company references'), leaving query semantics, the outcome enum, category, language, and the limit cap entirely undocumented in both places.

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 verb+resource: 'find source-backed AI startup cases, with dated revenue/adoption/failure evidence.' That is clearly distinct from siblings like compare_startup_cases and build_startup_plan. It stops short of explicitly differentiating itself from get_startup_radar, which sounds adjacent.

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 line 'Relevance is not success probability' and 'Default excludes company references' give implied usage context, but no alternative tool is named and no when-not-to-use condition is stated. An agent must infer that scope/outcome parameters select the search mode rather than being told.

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