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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses nonce expiration (5 minutes), compatibility constraints (dashboard-signed messages won't work), and the signing requirement (Solana wallet). This is rich, non-obvious behavioral context that an agent needs to call the tool correctly.

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 a compact four-sentence block where every sentence earns its place: legacy warning, tool purpose, next step, and two critical caveats (expiry and dashboard incompatibility). It is front-loaded with the most decision-relevant information and contains no filler.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description tells the agent everything needed to execute the flow: what the tool returns, how to use the result (sign and pass to initialize_session), and the operational constraints. It is complete enough to avoid surprises.

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 input schema already fully documents walletAddress as a base58 Solana public key (100% coverage), so the description adds no new parameter-level semantics. It provides surrounding context about the wallet's role in the flow, but doesn't enhance the parameter definition itself, warranting the baseline of 3.

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 this is the first step of creating a campaign session in the LEGACY wallet flow and that it returns the exact message to sign with a Solana wallet plus the nonce inside it. It differentiates from siblings by explicitly naming create_account and launch_campaign as the modern alternative, making the tool's role unambiguous.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'LEGACY wallet flow — new integrations should use create_account and launch_campaign' and warns that a message signed for the dashboard will not work here. It also names the next step, initialize_session, so the agent knows exactly how to chain the call.

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