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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the returned fields: paymentRequired flag, fee in cents, accepted token mint (USDC on Solana) and treasury wallet address, plus the legacy/API-key distinction. It does not state whether the call requires session auth or has any side effects, which keeps it at 4.

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, front-loaded with the most decision-relevant fact (LEGACY + migration path) before describing the payload. Every clause earns its place and no filler is present.

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 no-param, no-annotation, no-output-schema read of session config, the description covers both routing and the return shape, which is what an agent needs. Only auth/session prerequisites are omitted.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. No misleading parameter claims are made.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource (returns the agent session configuration) and immediately distinguishes itself from siblings by naming create_account and launch_campaign as the preferred path for new integrations. An agent can tell it apart from get_account or get_pricing 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?

It explicitly gives the when-not condition (legacy wallet flow; new integrations should use create_account/launch_campaign with API key + prepaid balance) and names the alternatives. The when-to-use case for existing wallet-based integrations is only implied by the 'LEGACY' label rather than stated, so it falls just short of a 5.

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