run_pitchwall_products_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the cost model ('1 point per returned record') and the returned fields, but says nothing about pagination behavior despite a start_page parameter, nor about auth or rate limits.

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?

A single dense sentence front-loads the core action and scope, then lists output fields and cost. Efficient, though the field enumeration slightly blurs the sentence's focus.

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 helpfully enumerates the returned fields (name, tagline, website, topics, publish date, link) and the cost, making it callable without further lookup. Pagination semantics remain the only notable gap.

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 topic, max_items, and start_page with examples and bounds. The description adds only the optionality of topic, so the 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+resource ('List ... PitchWall products') with scope (newest, or filtered by topic) and enumerates returned fields. It is clearly distinguishable from run_pitchwall_products in intent, though it never names that sibling to contrast the two.

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 description notes 'The topic is optional', which implies the two calling modes (browse newest vs. filter by tag), but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance and never points to run_pitchwall_products as the alternative. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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