run_techeu_exits_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose real behavioral traits: sort order ('newest first'), the data source and its CC BY 4.0 license, and a per-record cost model ('1 point per returned record'). It omits any mention of pagination semantics (start_page) or rate/auth constraints, keeping it short of a 5.

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 dense sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, followed by output fields and the cost note. Every clause carries information, though the parenthetical license/source detail sits awkwardly mid-sentence.

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 usefully enumerates returned fields, and the cost note compensates for absent annotations. The main gap is the unaddressed relationship between start_page and max_items for paginating a result set capped at 250.

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 the schema already documents from, to, country, max_items and start_page. The description adds no syntax, format, or interaction guidance for those parameters, 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?

States a specific verb ('Search') and a precise resource ('European startup exits and M&A'), names the underlying source, and enumerates the returned fields (company, date, type, value in EUR, acquirer). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling Tech.eu tools like run_techeu_rounds_search and run_techeu_companies.

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 the resource description (use it for exit/M&A data), and the '1 point per returned record' clause gives a practical reason to bound results. However, it never states when to prefer this over run_techeu_rounds_search or run_techeu_investors_search, and gives no exclusions.

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