run_wefunder_companies

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it discloses the rich read content returned (round details, team, memos, FAQ, updates) and adds a cost signal ('Flat 5 points per successful run'). It stops short of stating read-only behavior explicitly, error handling, or rate limits, keeping it from 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?

Front-loaded with the verb and resource, then a dense enumeration of returned fields that substitutes for the absent output schema, closing with the point cost. Every clause earns its place; no 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 single-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description compensates well by enumerating return content and noting cost. It omits only minor context such as read-only semantics and failure behavior, so it is close to complete but not exhaustive.

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% – the single 'company' parameter is already documented with format ('slug or WeFunder URL') and an example ('riserobotics'). The description's 'by slug or URL' merely restates the schema, so 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 verb and resource ('Get one WeFunder company by slug or URL') and scopes it to a single entity, which distinguishes it from the run_wefunder_companies_search sibling that finds many. An agent can tell immediately what it fetches without opening the 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?

The 'one ... by slug or URL' phrasing implies this is the single-entity lookup versus the search sibling, but it never states when to prefer this tool or that search must be used first to obtain a slug. Usage is inferred rather than prescribed, and no exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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