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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: escrow funding requirement, 30-day post-campaign claim window, unclaimed funds returning to the signer's wallet, flat Stripe activation fee surfaced as activationRequired, and the single-use accessToken consumed on success. These are exactly the consequences an agent must know before calling.

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?

Front-loaded with the deprecation warning, then cleanly split into mode (a) and (b) with a closing paragraph for token, privacy, and expiry rules. Slightly long and the embedded runs of whitespace/line breaks suggest formatting artifacts, but every sentence adds usable information.

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 an 11-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the lifecycle well (create, fund, verify) and points at response fields the agent must consume next (escrow address, activationRequired). It stops short of describing the full response shape or failure modes, but is close to complete for correct invocation.

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 real meaning the schema does not: the mode determines which downstream funding call is required, that INCENTIVIZED participants earn USDC, and that minPercent gates result unlocking rather than merely bounding a number. The remaining range/default facts (1–42 days, 50% minimum, USDC default mint) simply restate the schema.

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') and immediately distinguishes itself from siblings create_account and launch_campaign as the legacy wallet-based flow. An agent can identify the tool and its place among the siblings without opening any 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?

Explicitly says 'LEGACY wallet flow — new integrations should use create_account and launch_campaign', naming the preferred alternatives. It also branches usage by mode (INCENTIVIZED vs NO_REWARD) and names the required follow-up calls verify_campaign_funding and verify_campaign_activation for each path.

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