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

Well beyond the annotations, which only flag non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world, non-destructive. The description adds quota consumption, authorization and fingerprint-stability prerequisites, the explicit 'do not repeat while waiting' warning, asynchronous delivery by email, and the paywall for additional reports.

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?

Five short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The key constraint (starts an analysis, consumes allowance, not idempotent) leads, and every remaining sentence carries a distinct operational fact.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must convey the behavior, and it does: async execution, email result delivery, non-idempotency, and quota/purchase implications. What is missing is any indication of how long the analysis takes or how the agent later retrieves the result, which would help for a fire-and-forget tool.

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 75%, and the schema already documents email, fingerprint, and website meaningfully. The description reinforces the authorization requirement and the stable-fingerprint constraint but adds no new syntax or format detail, and startupName remains undocumented in both places. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Start a new asynchronous startup analysis and email the public memo link.' The 'asynchronous' qualifier and the email-delivery outcome clearly separate it from read_startup_memo and get_screening_status, so an agent can distinguish it without opening any sibling schema.

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?

Gives concrete conditions: it consumes the free allowance, requires authorization plus a stable fingerprint, is not idempotent, and further reports require a website purchase. It stops short of naming the sibling to use for retrieving an existing memo (read_startup_memo) or checking progress, so the alternative-selection guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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