run_indiegogo_campaigns

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two non-obvious traits: the exact payload fields returned (goal, funds raised, backers, phase/outcome, story, risks, refund policy, stretch goals, creator, perk count) and the flat 5-point cost per successful run. It still omits error behavior and explicit read-only confirmation, keeping it short of 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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then a compact field list and cost note in two sentences with no filler. The long field enumeration is justified because there is no output schema, though it reads as a run-on list.

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 lookup with no output schema and no annotations, the description compensates well by enumerating the returned fields and the cost. Missing only error/not-found behavior and a pointer 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 description coverage is 100%, so the single 'campaign' parameter is already documented with an example in the schema. The description only restates 'by slug or URL' and adds no format or edge-case detail beyond it, matching the baseline 3.

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') plus the identifier form ('by slug or URL'), which clearly separates it from the search sibling run_indiegogo_campaigns_search. The enumerated return fields further pin down what the call yields.

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: you need a slug or URL, so the tool fits lookup workflows. It never states when to prefer run_indiegogo_campaigns_search or that a URL/slug is a prerequisite that search can supply. Adequate but with an obvious routing gap.

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