run_eustartups_investors

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It helpfully discloses the returned fields and the cost model ('Flat 5 points per successful run'), which is real behavioral context. However, it says nothing about failure behavior, auth requirements, rate limits, or what happens with an invalid slug.

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 well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then enumerates the payload and the cost. The eight-field list is slightly long but each item is informative, so little is wasted.

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 correctly compensates by listing the fields returned (type, HQ country, website, investment areas, typical investment, funding stages, LinkedIn, contact email) and adds the point cost. It is complete enough to call correctly, though it omits error/empty-result behavior.

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 already documents that it accepts a slug or EU-Startups URL with an example. The description's 'by slug or URL' restates the schema rather than adding syntax, format, or edge-case detail, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb+resource ('Get one investor from the EU-Startups investor database') and scopes it to a single record via slug or URL, which implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling search tool. It stops short of explicitly naming run_eustartups_investors_search as the alternative, so it lands at 4 rather than 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?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer it should call this when it already has an investor slug or URL. There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus run_eustartups_investors_search or run_eustartups_directory, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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