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

With no annotations, the description bears the full behavioral burden and meets it: it discloses that the call is free, requires no session or access token, returns all problems at once rather than just the first, explains adjustment behavior, gives the cost formula for both reward modes, and states that 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 clause earns its place: it front-loads the legacy/new integration warning, then covers behavior, return values, cost, call order, and a data-privacy guardrail. Despite its length, the information is ordered logically 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?

There is no output schema, so the description must communicate what the caller gets back, and it does: validity, all problems, suggested adjustments, and cost. It also covers prerequisites, workflow ordering, and a critical data-handling constraint, making it complete enough for an agent to invoke 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real semantic value beyond the schema by clarifying that cohortSize is the number of participants and not addresses, that rewardMode determines the cost formula, and that certain fields will be automatically adjusted such as expiry clamped and privacy threshold raised.

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 precise action: 'Checks a campaign BEFORE you pay for anything,' with the resource being a campaign. It also differentiates itself from siblings by calling out the legacy wallet flow and naming create_account, launch_campaign, and quote_campaign as alternatives.

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 tells new integrations to use create_account and launch_campaign instead, names quote_campaign as the key-flow equivalent, and prescribes the exact sequence: call this first, fix reported problems, then call get_session_nonce and pay. This leaves no ambiguity about when to use this tool.

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