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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does this thoroughly: it discloses the data source freshness (copy dated 14 Apr 2026), potential inaccuracies (names may be partners/investors), that every response includes source_path, that live-hunt-only responses list what they couldn't provide, and that payment is via x402 (USDC on Base). This goes well beyond what the schema reveals and gives the agent a realistic expectation of 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?

The description is a single, dense paragraph that front-loads the core purpose and then efficiently lists key behaviors, data limitations, and payment. Every sentence adds value: output fields, YC specifics, source freshness, source_path, discover mode, and payment. No fluff or repetition.

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 the tool has 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers most essential operational aspects: what it returns, modes, source freshness, what it cannot provide, and payment. It does not explain how limit affects results or default values for mode, but these are minor gaps given the richness of behavioral disclosure. Overall, an agent has sufficient context to call the 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?

The schema has 50% description coverage: query and filters have descriptions, while mode and limit are empty. The tool description adds some clarity for mode (explains discover as a filtered list of YC companies) and indirectly for filters (by stating no contact-detail filter exists). However, it does not explain the limit parameter or provide format examples for query or filters. It adds marginal value but does not fully compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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's function: providing real-time intelligence on a company by name or domain. It enumerates the always-returned fields (profile, description, industry, tech stack, social links) and distinguishes two modes (lookup and discover). This is specific and distinct from sibling tools like hsh-b2b-contact, which focus on contacts, and cricket tools, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: for company intelligence by name/domain, and it explains the discover mode as a filtered list of YC companies. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it lacks explicit exclusions and alternative guidance. It gives enough context to select it appropriately among siblings.

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