Get Funding and Press Signals

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

The description adds behavioral traits beyond annotations: it states 'Read-only' (matching readOnlyHint), 'requires APIFY_TOKEN', 'consumes Apify credits', and that results are 'deduplicated, dated events'. These go beyond the annotation hints, providing useful operational context.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose and then adds key details (output format, read-only, requirements). Every sentence adds value.

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 the low complexity, complete schema/annotation coverage, and no output schema, the description fully covers input, output, and constraints. It explains what data is returned, how it's formatted, and what infrastructure is needed.

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 100%, and the description adds extra meaning: for 'domain' it specifies 'without https or www' and gives an example; for 'company_name' it explains it is optional and used when domain does not match brand, with an example. This enhances understanding beyond the schema definitions.

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 the tool scans Google News and PR wires for specific signals (funding rounds, executive moves, etc.) and returns deduplicated, dated events in a flat JSON format. The verb 'scan' and the resource 'news/PR wires' are specific, and there are no sibling tools to differentiate.

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?

The description implies the tool is used when needing to find funding/press signals for a company domain. It also mentions prerequisites (APIFY_TOKEN, credit consumption) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. The context is clear enough for straightforward selection.

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