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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses legacy status, authentication requirement, wallet scoping, and the returned fields. It could add pagination or error behavior, but for a simple listing tool this is strong disclosure.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: legacy routing, sibling alternative, scope, auth requirement, and return fields. The parenthetical is slightly dense but remains compact and information-rich.

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 list operation with no output schema, the description fully equips an agent: it names the auth token, scopes results to the wallet, identifies the sibling equivalent, and enumerates the returned fields. Nothing critical is missing.

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% and the only parameter, sessionToken, is already described as 'Session token from verify_login_signature'. The description repeats this meaning without adding format, expiration, or usage details beyond 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?

States a specific verb ('Lists') and resource ('all campaigns created by your wallet'), and explicitly distinguishes this from list_my_campaigns by labeling it the legacy wallet flow. The resource and scope are 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?

Opens with explicit routing guidance: legacy wallet flow, new integrations should use create_account and launch_campaign, and list_my_campaigns is the equivalent for the key flow. It also names the prerequisite sessionToken from verify_login_signature.

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