list_vcs

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, rate limits, data freshness, or pagination behavior. The mention of 'Starter tier' implies a potential limitation but is not explained. For an unannotated tool, this is insufficient transparency.

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, focused sentence. It is concise and front-loaded with key information. However, it could be more structured by separating the purpose from the tier indicator.

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 and 3 params with no descriptions, the description falls short. It does not explain the return format, pagination (implied by 'limit'), or what each field corresponds to. The 'Starter tier' ambiguity leaves the agent without full operational context.

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% (no parameter descriptions). The description mentions 'focus, ticket size, stage, portfolio count, recent deals' but only 'focus' and 'stage' appear as parameters; 'ticket size', 'portfolio count', and 'recent deals' are not parameters, causing potential confusion. The 'limit' parameter is not mentioned in the description. The description adds some context but lacks completeness and consistency.

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 it is a VC directory listing focus, ticket size, stage, portfolio count, recent deals. It indicates the tool lists VC firms with specific attributes, which is distinct from sibling tools like list_stablecoins. However, the phrase 'Starter tier' is vague and could imply limited data without clarification.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many sibling list tools (e.g., list_stablecoins, list_nft_communities), but the description does not explain what makes list_vcs unique or when to prefer it. No context about required permissions or prerequisites.

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