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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the call launches the campaign LIVE, automatically sends invite emails, and is idempotent/safe to retry. It also surfaces the legacy-vs-modern constraint, giving the agent useful behavioral context.

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 compact and front-loaded: it opens with the critical legacy warning, then gives the necessary sequence, side effects, and retry safety. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given the low parameter count, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is complete enough for correct invocation. It explains the prerequisite, the trigger condition, the effect, and the retry policy, leaving no critical gap.

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 input schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds sequencing context around the funding transaction, but the schema already supplies the necessary per-parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies a specific action and resource: verifying/committing funding for a campaign's escrow wallet to launch it LIVE. It also distinguishes itself from the modern onboarding path by explicitly naming create_account and launch_campaign as the alternatives for new integrations.

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 when-to-use guidance: after the escrow wallet returned by create_campaign has been funded, for incentivized campaigns only. It also states when not to use it: new integrations should use create_account and launch_campaign instead, and it notes idempotency makes retries safe.

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