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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden — and it delivers. It discloses that accessToken is 'single-use and consumed on success,' that unclaimed rewards revert to the signer's wallet after 30 days, that INCENTIVIZED requires funding an escrow, and that NO_REWARD requires a Stripe activation fee. This exceeds what annotations would typically provide.

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?

The description is dense but information-packed; the legacy warning is front-loaded before the core statement, and mode-specific details follow logically. There is minor redundancy — 'launch_campaign is its equivalent for the key flow' partially restates the opening routing note — but no sentence is wasted given the two-mode complexity.

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 complex 11-parameter, 6-required tool with two financially distinct modes and no annotations or output schema, this description is remarkably complete: it covers mode workflows, follow-up verification calls, single-use token behavior, claim-window refunds, privacy gating, expiry bounds, and even names the key response fields (escrow address, activationRequired).

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema: it explains the consequence of choosing each rewardMode, clarifies that minPercent gates result unlocking at a 50% floor, and warns that accessToken is consumed on success. It doesn't enrich every parameter (digitalGiftText, rewardMint, cohortEmails are left to the schema), which keeps it from a 5.

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: 'Creates a new anonymous audio feedback campaign.' It also differentiates from siblings by naming launch_campaign as 'its equivalent for the key flow' and routing new integrations to create_account — an agent can tell this tool apart without opening schemas.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use routing: 'LEGACY wallet flow — new integrations should use create_account and launch_campaign (API key + prepaid balance, no wallet).' It further explains the required conditional follow-up workflow — call verify_campaign_funding for INCENTIVIZED or verify_campaign_activation for NO_REWARD — which tells the agent exactly what to do after invoking this tool.

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