extract_yc

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating safe read operations with external data. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by specifying the scraping behavior, source website, data freshness aspect, and the types of fields returned. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place: first sentence defines purpose and usage, second sentence specifies return data. No wasted words, front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 scraping tool with readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations but no output schema, the description does well by specifying the source website, example URL pattern, and exact return fields. It could be more complete by explaining pagination behavior or error cases, but covers the essential context given the tool's complexity.

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 50% (only the 'url' parameter has a description). The description adds some value by providing a concrete URL example pattern and mentioning the purpose ('to find startups in a space'), but doesn't explain the 'max_length' parameter's purpose or semantics beyond what the schema provides. With partial schema coverage, the description compensates somewhat but not fully.

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 specific action ('Scrape YC company listings'), target resource ('YC company listings'), and distinguishes from siblings by specifying the YC domain. It provides a concrete example URL pattern and lists the exact data returned (name, batch, tags, description, freshness timestamp).

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 for when to use this tool ('to find startups in a space') with a specific URL pattern example. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives among the sibling tools, though the specificity of the YC domain implicitly differentiates it from other extraction tools.

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