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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond those: the record must be public and existing, and a missing record is explicitly not a negative assessment. This prevents a common misinterpretation of lookup failures.

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 carry the core purpose, behavioral constraint, and the important missing-record caveat. No filler or redundant restatement of the schema exists.

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 simple lookup tool with rich annotations, the description covers what is returned, that it is read-only, that no research is started, and how to interpret a missing record. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to call it 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?

Schema coverage is 50%: the optional website parameter is described, while the required name parameter is not. The description does not add parameter-level detail, though 'name' is fairly self-evident from the tool name. It does not compensate for the missing name description enough to rise above baseline.

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 ('Retrieve') with a clearly bounded resource: an existing public startup score, summary, analysis date, and memo URL. The phrase 'without starting research' differentiates it from sibling tools like request_startup_memo, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 makes clear that this tool is for looking up an already-existing score rather than initiating new research. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to route correctly.

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