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 useful behavioral detail not present in the structured data: the billing model ('1 point per returned record'). It says nothing about pagination behavior or rate limits, so it adds some but not rich context.

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 tight sentences with zero filler: the first front-loads the action, filters and return fields; the second delivers the cost disclosure. Nothing is redundant.

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 correctly enumerates the key returned fields and discloses the cost per record, which is important for a paid search. All 15 params are covered by the schema. It lacks any note on pagination or result limits (max_items defaults to 25), leaving a minor gap.

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 15 parameters including enum options. The description only paraphrases the filter categories at a high level and adds no syntax, format, or default-value detail beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline.

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 ('Kickstarter projects'), then enumerates both the filter dimensions (keyword, category, state, staff picks, location, funding ranges) and the returned fields. It is clearly a search/list tool. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling run_kickstarter_projects, so it falls short of a 5.

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 description lists what can be filtered by but gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no comparison to alternatives such as run_kickstarter_projects or the other crowdfunding search tools (indiegogo, seedrs). Usage is only implied by the filter list.

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