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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context beyond that: it returns exactly ONE approve_url, the owner must be signed in and tick eligibility statements, nothing is saved or moved before approval, and an agent never starts a farm. This is meaningful behavioral disclosure, though it doesn't mention rate limits or error conditions.

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 instruction is front-loaded, but the description is long and includes promotional context about EventTrader's Airdrop Farmer programme. Some sentences, such as the farm listing criteria, are more interesting than necessary for invoking the tool correctly.

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 explain the return value; it does so (ONE approve_url) and describes the owner's approval workflow. For a complex proposal tool with nested allocations, this is fairly complete, though the exact shape of approve_url and error behavior are omitted.

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 documented. The description adds a small clarification for amount_usdc ('the best split over the farms the agent runs'), but otherwise restates the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Propose an Airdrop Farmer plan for your owner') and clarifies the two input modes (amount_usdc vs allocations). It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools airdrop_farm_farms or airdrop_farm_live, but the purpose 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?

It implies when to use the tool (to create a plan for owner approval) and describes the subsequent approval flow. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this over the sibling airdrop_farm_farms or airdrop_farm_live tools, or when not to use it.

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