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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely new behavioral trait – a flat 5-point cost per successful run – but says nothing about error handling, retries, 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: verb and resource first, then the payload inventory. The long field enumeration is dense but each item maps to a real returned value, so it earns its space.

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, enumerating the returned fields (goal, funds raised, backers, phase/outcome, creator, perks count, etc.) meaningfully fills the gap, and cost is disclosed. What is missing is routing context – how to get the slug, i.e. the relationship to the search sibling.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter, which already documents the slug-or-URL format and supplies an example. The description's 'by slug or URL' restates that without adding format, normalization, or validation detail, so the 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 Indiegogo campaign by slug or URL') and enumerates the returned data, so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It implicitly separates itself from a list/search tool by specifying a single campaign keyed by slug or URL, though it never names the sibling run_indiegogo_campaigns_search.

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: the required slug-or-URL input tells the agent this is a detail lookup that must follow some discovery step, but the description never says when to prefer this over run_indiegogo_campaigns_search or where to obtain the slug. No when-not guidance 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.