Not if they're actually written well.
Take the defining kender trait of stealing everything in sight. First off, why? Mostly for comedy reasons, because they're so "innocent" that they don't know that they're doing bad things--but honestly, that's neither funny nor a show of innocence (especially since they lie about stealing). Give them a legitimate reason for stealing stuff. Say that they have a philosophy--or even a non-theistic religious belief--that says it's OK to have personal property, but it's always wrong to hold on to it selfishly if someone else needs or wants the thing. Say that kender either don't care that other cultures think differently or that kender actively believe that other cultures are wrong when they hold onto things.
So what this means is that you will have kender who accept this philosophy blindly and "handle" things whenever they want to; those who accept the philosophy but also realize that they shouldn't inflict their beliefs on other people; those who reject the philosophy; and those who come up with variants on that philosophy. More importantly, this prevents the kender from being a one-note annoyance because it is literally a choice as to how the player wants to deal with the handling, not just how much of a jerk the player wants to be.
This is just one way to "handle" kender (hur hur) without turning them into "just halflings."
The well is probably poisoned by now, but if I was running Dragonlance, I'd play up the kender lack of awareness of personal property as going both ways--if they have a pouch of gold, they'll hand it over to a beggar who clearly has more use for it than they do, or they'll happily lend their magic sword to someone else and forget to ask for it back.