trustmrr_acquire

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the source page, returned metrics, and data verification source, which is transparent for a read-only listing tool. However, it does not mention side effects, rate limits, or authorization needs, though these are less critical for a simple get operation.

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 two concise sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and follows with relevant details about metrics and data verification.

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?

Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns, its source, and key metrics. It is complete for an agent to understand and invoke the tool appropriately.

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 no parameters, so the description provides all semantic value. It explains that the tool returns all for-sale startups on the acquire page without any filtering, which is clear and complete.

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 retrieves TrustMRR acquisition listings from the public /acquire marketplace page, specifying deal metrics (asking price, revenue, multiple, growth) and noting verified revenue from payment providers. This distinct verb and resource set it apart from sibling tools like trustmrr_startups or trustmrr_marketplace.

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 usage for fetching acquisition listings but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., trustmrr_marketplace or trustmrr_startups). No exclusion criteria or context-specific recommendations are given.

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