run_theresanaiforthat_tools

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose useful non-schema behavior: the complete set of returned fields and the exact cost model ('Flat 5 points per successful run'). It stops short of stating rate limits, failure behavior for an unknown slug, or any auth/credential requirements.

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, both earning their place: the first front-loads the purpose and the returned-field inventory, the second carries the pricing note. The field enumeration is long but is doing the work of a missing output schema rather than padding.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (tagline, pricing, rating breakdown, features, FAQ, counters, etc.), which is what an agent needs to judge whether the call answers its question. Only the routing guidance relative to the search/alternatives/reviews siblings is absent.

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 and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains that 'tool' accepts a slug or a There's An AI For That URL with an example. The description adds no syntax, normalization, or format detail beyond that, so the baseline of 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 and resource ('Get one AI tool from There's An AI For That') and pins the identifier form ('by slug or URL'). The word 'one' plus the slug/URL lookup clearly separates it from the sibling run_theresanaiforthat_tools_search, which is the list/lookup counterpart.

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 only implied: it is obvious you call this when you already have a slug or URL, and that search is for when you don't, but neither the prerequisite nor the alternative is stated. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance are given.

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