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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: 'Points rank, they pay nothing: Rokha runs no platform payouts, and nobody is paid for a post' plus 'Public, no auth', which prevents an agent from misreading this as a monetization tool.

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 core purpose is front-loaded well, but the dense enumeration of every point value (sign-in 20, first run 10, paid run 2, agent connected 10, listing created 15, bounty entered 5) is detail an agent does not need to select or invoke the tool. It is a single paragraph and readable, but not every clause earns its place for the invocation decision.

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 no-parameter, no-output-schema read tool, the description is largely complete: it explains what the two campaign kinds are, how points accrue, and that the endpoint is public. The one gap is that it never confirms the return shape beyond the point breakdown, but with no output schema and no params this is minor.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters (additionalProperties: false), so there is no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline for a 0-param tool is 4. The description correctly adds no parameter noise.

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 first clause names the resource precisely — live Amplify campaigns anchored on official @rokha_agent posts — and specifies the audience (roster promoters who may carry them), which distinguishes it from siblings like amplify_optin and amplify_roster_join. It stops short of stating the action verb (list/retrieve), but the intent is 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?

The description hints at the audience ('roster promoters may carry') but never states when to call this versus amplify_optin or amplify_roster_join, nor any when-not condition. An agent must infer the trigger from context rather than being routed explicitly.

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