Search YC startups

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the behavioral burden and does meaningful work: it discloses that the operation is API-only, public, requires no auth, relies on Algolia as a fallback, and returns enough of a record to pass ids onward. It could add output-shape or pagination details, but it is substantially transparent for a search 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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the fallback behavior and the alternative-tool routing. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler or repetition.

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?

Despite having no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential behavior, auth model, filters, and the explicit follow-up path to yc_fetch_companies. It is slightly light on what the response object actually looks like, but for a search tool whose full schema documents parameters, this is close to complete.

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 the parameters are already fully documented in the schema. The description only re-lists filter names without adding beyond-schema usage details, landing at the baseline score of 3.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search Y Combinator startups') and differentiates itself from siblings by naming the follow-up tool (yc_fetch_companies) and by scoping to startups rather than jobs. An agent can immediately tell this is a search-first tool, not a detail-fetch tool.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: search here, then use yc_fetch_companies with returned ids for full details. It also names the public, no-auth fallback and available filters, giving clear context for when this tool is appropriate versus alternatives.

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