list_vcs

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

Without annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It mentions 'Starter tier' (implying a limitation) but does not explicitly confirm read-only operation, side effects, or response format. The phrase 'directory' suggests a query, but this is not stated definitively.

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 a single sentence with no extraneous words. It front-loads the core purpose ('Crypto VC directory') and adds key attributes. While concise, it could be slightly more informative without losing efficiency.

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?

Given no output schema, no annotations, and three parameters, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the output structure, the meaning of 'Starter tier', or how to use the 'limit' parameter. The mention of output fields (ticket size, etc.) is helpful but incomplete.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It lists 'focus' and 'stage' alongside non-parameter fields (ticket size, portfolio count, recent deals), implying these are filterable or output attributes. The 'limit' parameter is omitted. This provides partial context but not full 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 identifies the tool as a 'Crypto VC directory' and lists key attributes (focus, ticket size, stage, portfolio count, recent deals), clearly indicating it lists venture capital firms. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'query', which slightly reduces clarity compared to sibling tools.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_entity' or other list tools. The description does not specify use cases or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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