Fetch YC companies by IDs (direct WAAS API)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose the endpoint, POST method, required auth tokens, and data source. It does not mention whether the call is read-only, how errors surface, or any rate/limit behavior, which matters for a POST-based fetch tool.

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 short sentences pack in endpoint, body shape, auth, and sourcing with no filler. The odd parenthetical '(your curl)' and 'No Algolia' are terse but not redundant.

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 one-parameter tool the description covers the essential call mechanics and auth, but there is no output schema and no mention of the return shape or failure modes. It is also not explicit about how this tool relates to sibling startup retrieval tools.

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% and already documents the ids array, type, min/max, and an example. The description reinforces that ids are WAAS numeric ids and the call uses POST directly, but adds no meaningfully new parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 names a specific verb, resource, and HTTP operation ('POST https://www.workatastartup.com/companies/fetch with {ids:[...]}'), so an agent knows exactly what the tool does. It gestures at differentiation with 'Direct WAAS API' and 'No Algolia,' but it does not explicitly compare itself to yc_get_startup or the other siblings.

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 phrase 'Authoritative source for YC startup page' and 'No Algolia' imply this is the direct data source rather than a search path, and the auth requirement is a clear precondition. However, it never states when to prefer this over yc_get_startup or when not to use it, leaving usage context mostly implicit.

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