run_kickstarter_projects_search

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden. It does add genuinely useful behavioral context by disclosing the cost model ('1 point per returned record') and the shape of returned records, but says nothing about pagination, rate limits, or result caps (max_items 250), leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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 tightly packed sentences with no waste. Filter capabilities are front-loaded, followed by returned fields and the cost note, so every clause earns its place.

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 15-parameter search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description compensates by enumerating returned fields and stating cost. However it omits sorting, pagination (start_page/max_items), and raised-vs-state range distinctions, so it is only partially complete for the tool's complexity.

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 fully documents all 15 parameters, establishing a baseline of 3. The description echoes several filter dimensions (keyword, category, state, staff picks, location, funding ranges) but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 ('Search') and resource ('Kickstarter projects'), then enumerates both the filter dimensions and the returned fields. This clearly distinguishes it as a query tool, but it never references the sibling 'run_kickstarter_projects' to draw the single-vs-search boundary 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?

The listing of filterable dimensions (keyword, category, state, staff picks, location, funding ranges) implies how the tool is used, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the alternative 'run_kickstarter_projects'.

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