run_seedrs_campaigns_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 that only live campaigns are searched and that billing is '1 point per returned record' — a real cost signal. It does not disclose pagination/default result count behavior or any rate limits, leaving a gap for a 10-parameter search tool.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and resource before listing facets and outputs — no wasted preamble. It is dense and slightly overloaded at the tail (returned-field list), but every element is informative given there is no output schema.

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?

All 10 parameters are optional and fully documented in the schema, and the description compensates for the absent output schema by naming the return fields (raised/target amounts, valuation, investors, type, status, link). Only default result-count and paging behavior remain undeclared, which is a minor 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 every parameter and the full sort enum. The description restates the filter categories and the returned fields, adding marginal mapping value but no syntax, format, or combination guidance beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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') plus a precisely scoped resource ('live Republic Europe (Seedrs) campaigns'), and enumerates the filterable facets (name word, sector, impact tag, business type, tax relief, pitch type) and the fields returned. This distinguishes it from the sibling run_seedrs_campaigns (single campaign lookup) and run_seedrs_businesses 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?

The word 'live' implies results are restricted to active campaigns, and the facet list implies this is the discovery tool versus run_seedrs_campaigns for a known campaign. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this over run_seedrs_campaigns or run_seedrs_businesses, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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