search_founder_resources

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the backing endpoint, data provenance, and CC-BY-4.0 licensing with an attribution request, which is context beyond the schema. However it says nothing about pagination behavior, the shape of results, or whether the data is read-only (implied but not stated).

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, front-loaded with the subject matter, with no filler. The endpoint URL is arguably redundant but the licensing sentence earns its place for attribution compliance.

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 three-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema search tool, the definition is minimally adequate: the schema covers inputs, but the description neither clarifies the return shape nor differentiates this from ten near-identical sibling search 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 description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (q, type, limit) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, default, or behavioral detail about them, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 the resource ('Resources for founders of AI safety projects'), which is enough to identify the subject matter, but it never uses a search verb or scope statement and offers no distinction from the ten sibling search_* tools. An agent must infer from the tool name alone that this is a search operation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus search_communities, search_projects, or the other siblings, and no mention of prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the name.

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