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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does an above-average job. It discloses the token's expiry (1 hour), single-use nature, and that it is consumed when create_campaign is called. However, it does not explicitly state whether the verification itself has side effects beyond returning a token, or failure behavior (e.g., invalid signature). It is still far more transparent than typical descriptions.

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 four sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: legacy warning, core function, token requirement, and token consumption. It is front-loaded with the most important warning. It could be slightly more compact, but there is no filler or 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?

The tool has only 2 simple parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers the return value (access token) and its critical properties (expiry, single-use), which is the key contextual information an agent needs. It does not cover error cases or prerequisites beyond the schema, but for this complexity level it is sufficiently complete.

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 both parameters are already well-documented. The description adds only a slight reframing ('USDC payment') but no additional procedural context for how to obtain the parameters beyond what the schema states. Baseline 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 states a specific verb ('Verifies') and resource ('on-chain USDC payment to the treasury'), and clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by labeling the flow as LEGACY and naming alternatives (create_account and launch_campaign). The purpose is unambiguous and immediately actionable.

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?

Explicitly states when NOT to use the tool ('new integrations should use create_account and launch_campaign') and provides the context of when it IS needed (access token required for create_campaign). This gives the agent clear decision criteria without needing to inspect other tool schemas.

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