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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the legacy status, the wallet-ownership access restriction, the authentication requirement, and the read-oriented nature ('Returns'). It does not explicitly state 'does not modify anything' or describe error behavior, but the return-focused phrasing implies a read-only operation and the core behavioral constraints are well covered.

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?

Three sentences with no wasted words. The critical legacy warning and alternative are front-loaded, followed by the purpose and constraints. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple 2-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it tells the agent what the tool does, when to use it (and when not), what auth is needed, which resources are accessible, and what data will be returned. No critical gaps for correct invocation and selection.

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. The description adds value by clarifying that campaignId must reference a wallet-owned campaign ('Only campaigns owned by your wallet are accessible'), and it reinforces the origin and necessity of sessionToken. This goes slightly beyond the schema's bare descriptions.

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 ('Returns detailed stats'), a specific resource ('a specific campaign'), and enumerates the exact data fields (invite count, response count, completion rate, question definitions, campaign status). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_campaign ('its equivalent for the key flow') and from the newer create_account/launch_campaign flow.

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 this is the LEGACY wallet flow and that new integrations should use create_account and launch_campaign instead. It names the alternative for the equivalent key flow (get_campaign), states the precondition (requires sessionToken from verify_login_signature), and imposes an access constraint (only campaigns owned by your wallet).

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