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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions it's a read-only retrieval operation (returns config), but doesn't disclose whether any side effects occur, whether it requires authentication, or whether the returned fee is static or variable. The legacy flow is mentioned but not elaborated. Lacks detail on what happens if no config exists or if it changes.

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 moderately sized, about 3 sentences. It starts with an explicit warning (LEGACY) and the alternative. The key output details are front-loaded. A bit verbose in the middle, but efficient overall.

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?

Given the tool's zero parameters and no output schema, the description needs to explain what the tool returns and how to use it, which it does. It covers returns, usage, and context. However, it lacks details on return format (e.g., object shape), error cases, or authentication requirements, which are relevant for a call-first tool.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description explains what data the tool returns (treasury address, token mint, session fee), which is valuable context beyond the empty schema. It could mention the units (USDC, cents) which it does partially, and explains where to pay, but no parameters to document.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: it returns payment configuration (treasury address, token mint, session fee) needed before starting an agent session. It uses a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('payment configuration'), and differentiates itself from the modern flow by naming sibling alternatives (create_account and launch_campaign). However, it could be more explicit about the full scope (e.g., it's the legacy flow) in the first sentence.

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?

The description explicitly marks this as the LEGACY flow and says new integrations should use create_account and launch_campaign instead, giving clear when-to-use guidance. It also states to call this first to learn payment details, which is a usage directive. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it beyond legacy vs new, but the guidance is strong.

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