Get YC startup details

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the dual-path behavior (authoritative POST /companies/fetch vs. Algolia+yc-oss fallback) and that batch ids[] hits the direct endpoint. It does not mention read-only nature explicitly, but 'get' strongly implies it. Overall, meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema is present.

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 three tight sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, followed by auth behavior and supported input formats. Every sentence contributes a distinct piece of information, making it easy to scan and parse.

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 retrieval tool with three fully described parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key context: what it gets, how resolution works, and what identifiers are accepted. It could add a note about the return shape or explicitly distinguish from yc_fetch_companies, but the current level is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so parameter meanings are fully documented in the schema. The description only restates that slug, companyId, or ids[] are supported, adding little to what the schema already provides. This meets but does not exceed the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get full YC startup profile by slug.' It also enumerates supported input modes (slug, companyId, ids[]), clarifying the tool's scope. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling yc_fetch_companies, which may also involve fetching company data, so the distinction is inferred rather than stated.

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 provides clear context on when direct API resolution is used ('If WAAS_COOKIE set') and when the non-auth fallback applies. This gives the agent actionable conditional guidance. It stops short of naming alternative tools for specific cases (e.g., using yc_search_startups to find a slug), but the auth-dependent usage is well specified.

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