run_indiehackers_products

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the returned fields and the fixed cost ("Flat 5 points per successful run"), and "Get" implies a read-only operation, but it says nothing about authentication, rate limits, or what happens when the slug is invalid.

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 covers the operation, source, input, and return payload, with the cost noted briefly afterward. Dense and waste-free, though the field list runs somewhat long.

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?

There is no output schema, so the field enumeration in the description is doing necessary work, and the cost note adds practical context. It is close to complete for a single-parameter read tool; only auth/error behavior is left 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% and the single parameter is documented with an example, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only that the value may be either a slug or a full Indie Hackers URL, a mild clarification beyond the schema's slug-only example.

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 product from Indie Hackers") plus the accepted identifier forms (slug or URL). The "one product" framing implicitly separates it from the bulk-list sibling run_indiehackers_products_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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: retrieving a known single product by slug/URL. There is no explicit when-to-use vs when-to-use-search guidance, no mention of run_indiehackers_products_search, and no error/not-found prerequisites.

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