run_indiegogo_campaigns_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses a real behavioral trait: '1 point per returned record', a cost signal. However, it omits auth requirements, pagination behavior despite the start_page parameter, and whether results span both Indiegogo and Gamefound simultaneously.

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 sentences with no filler: the search scope and filters come first, the return fields and point cost follow. The returned-field list is dense but front-loaded and useful given 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by listing returned fields (name, tagline, goal, funds raised, backers, phase, dates, creator, link) and the cost model. For a 10-parameter, zero-required search tool this is nearly complete; only sibling routing and pagination behavior are unaddressed.

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 10 parameters with enums and examples. The description restates the filter categories but adds no syntax, format, or interaction detail beyond the schema, so the 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 and resource ('Search Indiegogo (and Gamefound) projects') and enumerates the filter dimensions and returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what the tool retrieves. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling run_indiegogo_campaigns, which likely serves a different access pattern.

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 phrase 'by keyword and category, phase, benefit, tag, creator and player-count filters', which tells the agent this is the filtered-search entry point. There is no explicit when-to-use vs run_indiegogo_campaigns or run_kickstarter_projects_search, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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