run_futurepedia_tools

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: 'Get' implies a non-destructive read, it enumerates the returned fields, and it uniquely discloses cost ('Flat 5 points per successful run'). It omits auth requirements, rate limits, and error behavior, keeping it from a 5.

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 the verb and scope first, followed by the return inventory and the cost note. The long field enumeration is dense but earns its place since there is no output 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?

Because no output schema exists, listing the returned fields is genuinely valuable, and the cost disclosure is included. It is complete for a single-identifier lookup, with only auth/error context 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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description only restates 'by slug or URL' without adding format or normalization detail, so the baseline 3 is correct.

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 AI tool from Futurepedia') and pins the input to 'by slug or URL'. It implicitly contrasts with the sibling run_futurepedia_tools_search ('one' by identifier vs. a search), though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

'by slug or URL' implies you must already have a known identifier, which is a form of usage guidance, but the description never states when to use this versus run_futurepedia_tools_search, run_futurepedia_tools_reviews, or run_futurepedia_tools_alternatives.

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