run_seedrs_businesses

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the returned payload (description, sector, available shares, valuation and its change, eligibility, incorporation date) and the cost ('Flat 5 points per successful run'), but never states that it is a read-only fetch, nor any auth or rate-limit behavior.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and source, with the returned-field list and cost appended. Dense but every clause carries information; only the enumeration gets close to over-stuffing.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe returns — and it does so thoroughly for a single-parameter fetch. Missing only the read-only/permission context, which is minor for such a simple tool.

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 single parameter is already documented ('Business slug or URL. e.g. revolut'). The description's 'by slug or URL' merely restates the schema rather than adding format or edge-case detail, so 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get one funded business from the Republic Europe (Seedrs) secondary-market page by slug or URL') and enumerates the returned fields. This cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling run_seedrs_campaigns (campaigns) and run_seedrs_campaigns_search without opening either 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?

Usage is implied by 'by slug or URL' — the agent learns it needs a pre-existing identifier — but there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus run_seedrs_campaigns or the search variant, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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