run_yc_founders_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a genuine trait beyond the schema – the '1 point per returned record' cost model – which helps an agent budget calls. However, it says nothing about pagination behavior, result ordering, or what happens when filters are combined.

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 with the search scope front-loaded ahead of the cost note. The enumerated field list partially duplicates what the schema already exposes, but it is short enough not to be wasteful.

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 seven-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers what is searchable and the cost model, which is a reasonable minimum. It stops short of describing return contents or pagination semantics (start_page/max_items interplay), leaving gaps an agent must guess at.

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 all seven parameters and the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax or format guidance, and it actually introduces a 'region' filter that does not exist in the schema, which is mildly misleading rather than clarifying.

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 (public Y Combinator founders directory), plus the dimensions it can be filtered on. It is distinguishable from the many run_yc_companies_* siblings by naming 'founders' explicitly, though it never names a sibling to contrast with.

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 scoping ('public YC founders directory') and by the listed filters, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement and no routing away from alternatives such as run_yc_companies_search or run_linkedin_people_search, which could plausibly be confused with it.

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