run_pitchwall_products

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose return content (tagline, description with pricing and FAQs, website, topics, publish date, social accounts, screenshots, submitter) plus a cost model ('Flat 5 points per successful run'). It still omits failure behavior for an invalid or missing product, which is the main remaining gap.

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 purpose before the field inventory and cost. The field list is long, but given there is no output schema each enumerated field does earn its place; still, it is a dense enumeration rather than tight prose.

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 detail tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies exactly the missing pieces: what the call returns and its point cost. Only error/not-found behavior is unaddressed, which is a minor omission.

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?

Only one parameter exists and schema description coverage is 100%, including a concrete example slug in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'slug or URL' phrasing merely restates the schema's accepted formats without adding resolution rules or normalization guidance.

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?

Specific verb+resource+identifier: 'Get one product from PitchWall by slug or URL'. The 'one product ... by slug or URL' framing cleanly separates it from the sibling run_pitchwall_products_search, which returns lists. An agent can pick between them without opening either schema.

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 singular 'one product ... by slug or URL', which suggests a detail lookup that follows a search. However, the description never explicitly names run_pitchwall_products_search as the way to obtain slugs, nor states when this tool should be preferred or what happens if the input is neither a valid slug nor URL.

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