yc_get_founder_profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so safety needs no restating. The description adds genuinely non-structured behavior: the response deliberately excludes contact details, birthdate, and precise address, which tells an agent not to plan downstream steps around those fields. It does not describe error or not-found behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and capped with the field-omission caveat; nothing is redundant. The phrase "precise address fields" is slightly clipped, but that is a minor wording cost rather than wasted content.

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 single-parameter read with an output schema and rich annotations, the description covers the essentials: what is fetched, what key is needed, and what is withheld. Only provenance of the bio UUID and failure behavior are unaddressed, which is a modest gap at this 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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the one parameter (bioUuid) is documented only by its UUID format and pattern in the schema. The description confirms it is a founder bio identifier, which is slight added meaning, but never says where such a UUID is obtained or what happens if it refers to a non-founder.

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?

"Read a founder profile and work history by bio UUID" gives a specific verb (read), specific resource (founder profile + work history), and the key that selects it. It is clearly distinct from application-, schema-, and mutation-oriented siblings, though it never names another tool to sharpen the boundary.

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?

Usage is implied by "by bio UUID" — an agent knows it needs a bio UUID in hand to call it — but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisite on where the UUID comes from, and no alternative (e.g., a name or email lookup path) named.

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