trustmrr_startups

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions pagination and the public sitemap source, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is non-destructive or what rate limits apply. The description adds some behavioral context but could be more explicit.

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?

Three sentences that are efficient and front-loaded: first sentence states purpose, second adds context, third ties to sibling tool. No wasted words.

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 description explains that the response contains a paginated list with slugs, linking to the complementary endpoint for details. However, it does not specify other fields in the list entries (e.g., name, url), and there is no output schema. This leaves some ambiguity about the response structure.

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 100% with both page and page_size documented. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond 'paginated list', which is already implied. 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?

The description clearly states the tool lists all TrustMRR startups, specifies the source (public sitemap), and explains the output (slug for each startup). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool trustmrr_startup, which retrieves a single profile.

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 tells when to use this tool (to list all startups) and implies the complementary use of trustmrr_startup for full profiles via slugs. It also mentions the benefit of not needing the authenticated marketplace API. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives beyond the implied pairing.

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