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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it states the tool is free, needs no session or access token, returns all problems at once, describes automatic adjustments (expiry clamped, privacy threshold raised, empty questions dropped), and explains cost behavior for incentivized versus no-reward campaigns. It also notes the endpoint never receives contact details.

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 dense but every sentence contributes routing, safety, return-value, or cost information. It is slightly long and leads with a legacy-migration warning before the core validation purpose, which delays the central action somewhat, but it remains well-structured and free of 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?

There is no output schema and no annotation coverage, yet the description explains what the tool returns, what it adjusts, what it costs, authentication requirements, call ordering, and the cohort-size constraint. For a 9-parameter validation tool, this is complete enough to call correctly and interpret results.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful semantic emphasis beyond the schema, especially that the caller must pass cohort size rather than addresses and that rewards are paid at activation while no-reward campaigns incur an activation fee.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Checks a campaign') and explicitly distinguishes this legacy wallet flow from the recommended create_account and launch_campaign flow, plus quote_campaign as the key-flow equivalent. An agent can identify the tool's purpose and its place among siblings without opening any schema.

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 gives explicit ordering guidance: call this first, fix reported issues, then call get_session_nonce and pay. It also names alternatives for new integrations and clarifies that quote_campaign is the equivalent for the key flow, so when-to-use and when-not-to-use are both clear.

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