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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavior disclosure. The text only states the action and filter (sector) but does not explain what 'recently' means, how results are returned, whether pagination applies, or any data source limitations. This is minimal transparency for a search tool.

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 sentence with no redundant words or phrasing. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without filler, making it easy to parse and remember.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context about what the search returns, the meaning of 'recently', and how it differs from sibling tools. The current description is too sparse to fully guide an agent in a complex context.

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 covers both parameters with clear descriptions (query and country), achieving 100% coverage. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, but it also does not contradict it. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given the schema's adequacy.

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 uses a specific verb ('Find') and a clearly stated resource ('recently founded startups') with a context qualifier ('in a sector'). This distinguishes it from generic company lookups, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'industry_companies' or mention when to prefer this tool.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or mention sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the name and schema alone.

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