Revexa: B2B buying signals

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the payload contents (price by region, trial, links) but says nothing else behavioral, such as whether pricing is live or static, which is a minor gap given annotation coverage.

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 sentence that front-loads the product identity and then lists the content categories. It is somewhat run-on, especially the nested clause about finding companies and reaching people, but nothing is redundant.

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 informational tool with no output schema, the description enumerates the returned content well enough for an agent to decide to call it. It could note whether pricing/link data is current, but that is a minor omission.

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 takes zero parameters, so the schema carries no semantics to supplement; the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly signals that no filtering or scoping input is needed.

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 (facts about the Leo by Revexa product) and enumerates exactly what those facts cover: capabilities, regional pricing, trial, and links. It is unmistakably distinct from the sibling tools, which all retrieve third-party company/funding data rather than product info.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer it is for when a user asks about Leo/Revexa, its price, or a trial. There are no explicit trigger conditions and no statement of when not to call it or what to use instead.

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/openWorld/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the upstream source is Platsbanken (CC0), and recruitment/staffing agencies plus mass door-to-door or telephone-sales hiring are actively removed from results — a filtering rule an agent cannot infer from any structured field.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what is listed and from where, then the exclusion rules, then the use case. No filler, though the final 'Use it to...' sentence is somewhat redundant with the opening scope statement.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining returns; it discloses the source and the filtering but not the shape of a returned company record (name, ad count, links), which an agent would want. Still complete enough to select and invoke the tool correctly given its simplicity and annotations.

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 schema already documents both limit and county, including the full county enum list. The description only restates 'Optional filter by county (län)', adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema — baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource — companies with open B2B salesperson job ads in Sweden — and pins down the data source (Platsbanken, CC0). The Swedish/geographic and 'B2B salesperson' scoping implicitly separates it from find_startups_hiring_sales, but the sibling is never named, so overlap risk remains.

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?

'Use it to find companies that are building up their sales teams in Sweden' gives one clear usage context. However, it offers no exclusions or routing to alternatives such as find_startups_hiring_sales or recent_b2b_funding_rounds, so the agent must infer when this tool wins over its siblings.

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, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds behavior beyond that: the data source (public job boards), the freshness cadence (updated weekly), and the fact that only currently-open roles are returned.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose followed by filters and freshness. Every clause adds information; nothing is redundant padding.

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 no output schema, the description should ideally sketch the returned fields (company, role, job link), which it does not. For a simple filter-only search tool with full annotation coverage and a well-explained taxonomy, it is otherwise complete.

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% (region and limit have no schema descriptions), so the description carries real weight: it spells out the role taxonomy (SDR, BDR, account executive, head of sales) and the region options in prose. Only limit meaning is left to the schema, which is nearly self-evident.

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 gives a specific verb (Lists) plus a well-scoped resource (venture-backed B2B YC startups with open sales roles), and names the source (public job boards) and freshness. It implicitly separates itself from find_companies_hiring_salespeople_sweden via the YC/B2B framing, but never explicitly routes the agent to a sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

It tells the agent which filters exist (region, role type) and their accepted values, which implies how to narrow results, but gives no when-to-use/when-not guidance and never contrasts with the sibling tools. Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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 cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the provenance (tech.eu, EU-Startups, TechCrunch) and the weekly collection cadence, which tells the agent how stale results may be. Rate limits and result ordering are unaddressed.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose in the first clause, followed by the field list and data-source note. Two sentences with little waste; the provenance sentence runs slightly long but still carries relevant 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields, and it discloses data provenance and cadence for a low-complexity two-parameter tool. It falls short on the meaning of the parameters and the precise boundary of 'this week', but the core picture is complete.

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%, so the description must compensate for the two parameters but does not. 'limit' is never mentioned, and 'region' is only obliquely implied by the phrase 'European and US tech news' rather than as a filterable enum (europe/us/any).

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 ('Lists') and resource ('B2B companies that announced funding rounds this week'), and enumerates the returned fields (amount, round, country, description, source article). The domain is unmistakably distinct from the sibling tools, which concern hiring and a person named Leo.

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 note that data is 'collected weekly from open news feeds' implicitly signals a freshness/recency constraint an agent should account for. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over alternatives nor any exclusions, so usage must be inferred.

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