get_startup_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. Beyond the embedded 'read-only' keyword it says nothing about idempotency, auth requirements, caching, or what the response looks like. For a no-param read endpoint the bar is low, but the description still adds almost no behavioral context.

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 meaningful content is two short phrases, buried under a long, redundant keyword dump ('get startup info, fetch startup info, read startup info...'). The signal is not front-loaded ahead of the noise, and the keyword list adds no selecting value.

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 parameterless tool the description could still say what the returned startup data covers, but it only offers the tautology 'returns helpful startup information'. With no output schema, no annotations, and no explanation of contents, an agent lacks enough context to know why or when to call it.

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 there is no parameter semantics to document. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4.

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 essentially restates the tool name ('Get Startup Info ... get startup info') and adds only the HTTP endpoint. It never explains what 'startup information' actually contains, so an agent cannot distinguish it from the sibling app_about_get_app_info. This is a tautological restatement rather than a specific verb+resource distinction.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or how it relates to the near-identical app_about_get_app_info sibling. The trailing keyword list (fetch, read, retrieve, view...) is keyword stuffing, not usage guidance.

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