run_techeu_investors

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does add real value by disclosing the cost model ('Flat 5 points per successful run') and the single-profile scope, but says nothing about failure behavior, partial matches, or what a 'successful run' requires. Adequate but incomplete for an unannotated tool.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the operation and identifier before the data enumeration and cost. The list of returned fields is slightly dense but each item is informative rather than filler.

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 one-parameter lookup with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, accepted identifier, returned data categories, and cost. Only failure/ambiguity handling is absent, which is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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?

One parameter at 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents 'Investor name or Tech.eu URL'. The description's 'by name or URL' restates that without adding format, matching, or disambiguation detail. 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 investor profile from Tech.eu Funding Explorer by name or URL', going on to enumerate the data returned (deals, portfolio, biggest deals, co-investors, focus). The 'one ... by name or URL' phrasing implicitly separates it from the run_techeu_investors_search sibling, though that sibling is never named explicitly, which keeps it 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?

Usage is only implied: 'by name or URL' suggests this is the exact-lookup path when the investor identifier is already known, versus the search sibling. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no guidance on ambiguous names or what to do if the name matches multiple investors.

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