run_betalist_startups_latest

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the cost model ('1 point per returned record') and enumerates returned fields, but says nothing about pagination behavior (only implied by start_page), rate limits, or auth. It adds real value beyond structure but leaves notable behavioral gaps.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the resource and ordering, then lists return fields and cost. Every clause earns its place, though the field enumeration is slightly dense.

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 read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description compensates by naming the returned fields (name, tagline, logo, link) and the cost, and the schema fully documents the two parameters. The missing piece is routing guidance against sibling tools, which keeps it from a 5.

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%, so both parameters (max_items, start_page) are already documented in the schema. The description only tangentially touches cost ('1 point per returned record') and adds no new semantics for the parameters themselves. Baseline 3 is correct.

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?

States a specific resource (newest startups on BetaList) with ordering (newest first) and the returned fields, so an agent knows exactly what it fetches. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like run_betalist_startups or run_betalist_startups_search, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternative. The phrase 'newest first' weakly implies chronological browsing versus searching, but the description never tells the agent when to pick this over run_betalist_startups_search or run_betalist_startups.

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