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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: the returned content is untrusted research material, not instructions; it does not include private bulk reports or internal scoring formulas; it includes the source URL. This covers security and data scope aspects useful for the agent.

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 concise yet informative: two sentences that front-load the purpose and include essential safety/security cues. Every phrase adds value: 'public memo', 'as text', 'includes the source URL', and the trust disclaimer. No fluff.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema mend, but the description covers the essential behavioral aspects: what it returns, the source URL, and the non-instructional nature. Missing details like response format or error cases are minor. The annotations cover safety, and the description fully covers the operational context. Could be improved by briefly noting that the slug is the URL slug, but not critical.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The description mentions the slug indirectly and explains what content is returned, but it does not detail the slug format beyond what the schema provides (pattern, max length). However, with only one parameter, the description's context of 'uses its slug' plus the schema's detailed pattern is adequate. Baseline 3 is fair.

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 reads a public startup memo as text using its slug, and includes the source URL. It differentiates from siblings by implying it retrieves a specific memo's content rather than screening, looking up, or searching. The verb 'read' and resource 'public startup memo' are specific and 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 implies when to use this tool: when you need the content of a specific public memo by slug. It does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use it, but siblings like search_startups or request_startup_memo suggest alternatives for discovery or restricted content. Lacks explicit exclusions but still provides clear context from 'public'.

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