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 reveals the legacy status, the on-chain payment requirement, the need to call verify_payment afterward, and the significant side effect that the proven wallet becomes the campaign creator and the only wallet able to read dashboard results.

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 longer than a simple one-liner, but every sentence earns its place: legacy warning, tool purpose, return value, required follow-up steps, and side effects. It is front-loaded with the most important routing information and contains no fluff.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It explains what the tool returns, what the caller must do next, what the wallet binding means, and how this flow differs from the modern alternative. An agent has enough context to invoke it correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some contextual meaning by tying the message and signature to get_session_nonce and noting the wallet becomes the creator, but it does not substantially extend the parameter documentation already present in 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?

The description clearly states the tool creates a new agent session via a legacy wallet flow, using a signature from get_session_nonce. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly directing new integrations to create_account and launch_campaign, so an agent can tell it apart without opening schemas.

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 says new integrations should use create_account and launch_campaign instead, and it outlines the full workflow: call this, send USDC on-chain, then call verify_payment. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, plus the necessary follow-up steps.

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