run_kickstarter_projects

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the cost model ('Flat 5 points per successful run') and the returned field set, but says nothing about error behavior when a project is not found, authentication, or response shape/pagination.

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, front-loaded with the action and input modes, then the returned fields. The long enumeration of fields is dense but informative for a tool with no output schema. No filler text.

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 single-parameter lookup with no output schema, enumerating the return fields is genuinely necessary and is done. The pricing note adds value. Only gaps are error/not-found behavior and the absence of sibling routing, which are minor for a simple fetch.

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 'project' parameter already documents both accepted formats (creator/project or Kickstarter URL) with an example. The description merely restates 'creator/project or URL', adding no new syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 Kickstarter project') and enumerates the returned fields (goal, pledged, backers, state, dates, creator, etc.). The word 'one' plus the singular framing distinguishes it from the plural search sibling run_kickstarter_projects_search.

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 'Get one Kickstarter project' (single-entity lookup), which a reader can contrast against the search sibling, but the description never names an alternative or states when to prefer it. No explicit when/when-not guidance is provided.

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