ShowMRR startup detail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, and the description goes beyond them by disclosing the shape of the response (MRR in cents plus currency, verification flag, revenue-as-of date, source page for unclaimed listings) and a data-integrity rule about never presenting 'NOT verified' figures as verified revenue. It does not say what happens on an unknown slug or when the upstream site is unavailable, which is the remaining gap.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the identity and data source, then the return fields, then the sibling routing and the safety caveat. No sentence is redundant with another.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values and does so field by field, including provenance for unclaimed listings. Combined with annotations that cover the safety profile and a fully documented single parameter, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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% and the single parameter idOrSlug is already documented with a pattern and an example ("ghost"). The description's "by numeric id or slug" restates the schema rather than adding new format or resolution-order detail, so the baseline 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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Fetch one ShowMRR startup by numeric id or slug") and names the upstream data source (showmrr.com), which distinguishes it from mrr_search and mrr_leaderboard, whose scopes are searching and listing respectively. An agent can tell this is a single-record lookup without opening the schema.

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?

It states an explicit usage condition and routing: "Use it to check a specific company after mrr_search finds its slug," which ties the call to a prerequisite sibling tool. It does not state when not to use it (e.g. use mrr_leaderboard or mrr_stats for aggregate views), so the guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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