run_yc_companies_search

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — '1 point per returned record' — which lets the agent reason about cost, but says nothing about pagination behavior despite start_page/max_items, nor about auth or rate limits.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the cost note is appended efficiently. The colon-separated field list makes the back half slightly dense but nothing is wasted.

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 helpfully enumerates the returned fields (name, one-liner, batch, status, industries, regions, team size, website) and discloses cost. The remaining gap is pagination semantics for start_page/max_items, which the description omits.

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 every one of the 12 parameters is already documented with type, enum, and example. The description only restates the filter categories and adds no syntax or interaction detail (e.g., how batches/regions compose), which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 resource (Y Combinator directory) plus the filter dimensions and the fields returned, so the agent knows exactly what it queries. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling run_yc_companies, leaving the search-vs-list split to inference.

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 phrase 'by keyword and filters' implies when to reach for it (keyword/faceted discovery), and the cost note hints at batching behavior, but there is no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternative guidance against run_yc_companies or the founders search siblings.

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