Crunchbase company data

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

The description discloses that the output is structured and hints at the data fields included. With no annotations provided, the description carries a heavier burden, but it does not mention limitations (e.g., data freshness, missing fields, errors) or output format beyond 'structured'. This is a minimal but not comprehensive disclosure.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently states the tool's purpose and key data fields. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy.

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 one-parameter tool, the description gives a reasonable overview of return content, but it does not specify whether the listed fields are exhaustive, how the data is returned (e.g., JSON structure), or any caveats (e.g., rate limits, URL validation). The lack of an output schema increases the need for more detail, which is only partially met.

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 input schema has one parameter 'url' with a clear description ('Crunchbase company URL') and format 'uri', achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 identifies the tool as providing Crunchbase company data and enumerates specific data types (funding rounds, investors, founded, HQ). It is distinct from sibling tools by its explicit reference to Crunchbase and company focus, though it lacks an explicit action verb like 'get' or 'retrieve'.

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?

Usage context is implied by the name and description: to obtain structured Crunchbase company data. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other company-data tools), nor any exclusions or alternative tool recommendations.

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