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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false; the trailing 'Read-only' largely restates that. The one genuinely additive detail is that the result link only appears 'once tested' and that the data is 'live', which hints at partial field population — but nothing about auth, rate limits, or the unusual idempotentHint=false.

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 leads with the verb and scoping, then lists the return fields, then closes with the safety note. No filler or redundancy.

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 one-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description covers purpose and notable return fields (useful since no output schema exists). It leaves minor gaps around freshness guarantees and what an untested product returns for the result link, but nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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% and the single id parameter is fully documented, including its source (search_crowdfund) and pattern. The description restates 'crowdfunding product id' without adding format or constraint meaning, so 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+resource ('Get live funding status') and enumerates exactly what comes back: goal, funded, remaining, contribution range, and result link. This clearly separates it from siblings like get_checkout_status and get_result, which share the 'status' framing.

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?

'For one crowdfunding product id' implies the tool is scoped to a single existing crowdfund, and the schema points at search_crowdfund for the id. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not statement or named alternative (e.g., use get_checkout_status for contribution state), leaving routing to inference.

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