run_wefunder_companies_search

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

No annotations, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose the cost model ('1 point per returned record'), which is genuinely useful behavioral context. But it says nothing about pagination (start_page/max_items behavior), auth requirements, or rate limits, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 front-loaded sentence that opens with the verb and resource, then lists filters and output fields with no filler. Slightly dense but every clause carries information.

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 and no annotations, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (name, tagline, raise progress, investors, valuation terms, founder, link) and stating the cost. Given seven all-optional filter parameters, this is reasonably complete, though it omits paging 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%, so the enum options and comma-separated formats are already fully documented. The description only restates the filter axes and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema; 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?

Specific verb (Browse) plus resource (WeFunder campaigns) and the filter dimensions (status, instrument, industry/highlight tags). It also enumerates the returned fields. However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling run_wefunder_companies, which is presumably the non-filtered counterpart.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The presence of run_wefunder_companies as a sibling makes the absence of any routing statement a real gap - an agent cannot tell from the text which of the two to pick.

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