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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds real context beyond them: the result is scoped to 'one page' (pagination behavior) and each result carries a funding snapshot, category, location, creator, and cover photo. It stops short of stating page-size limits or rate behavior.

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?

Front-loaded with the core verb and resource, then systematically lists filters, sorts, and return contents in a single dense sentence. No filler, though it is long enough that the sort and state enumerations could have been left to the schema.

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?

No output schema details are needed for the agent since one exists, yet the description's return-content sentence is harmless context. Combined with 100% param coverage and safe annotations, the definition gives an agent enough to call it correctly; only cross-tool routing is absent.

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 six parameters including allowed sort/state values. The description restates the sort and state enums and the optional category id/term, adding only the framing that filters are combinable – baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (Browse or search) plus resource (Kickstarter's Discover surface) and enumerates the matching dimensions (category id, term) and sort orders. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling detail endpoints kickstarter_project/comments/updates without opening a schema.

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 Discover/search framing, but the description never states when to use this versus the sibling kickstarter_project (single-campaign detail) tool, nor any exclusions. An agent can infer the browse intent but gets no explicit routing guidance.

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