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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: per-provider status fields, the meaning of `activeProvider` (the provider that currently gets paid, or null until the participant confirms one), and the appearance of a repair reason when a delivery bounced or a recipient was invalidated. That is real semantics the annotations cannot convey.

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 front-loaded with the core capability and the provider enumeration, then moves to return semantics, then the campaignId fallback, in a sensible order. It is somewhat dense with em-dashes and backticked field names, but every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not enumerate return values, yet it still summarizes the important ones (status, confirmed email, recipient type, repair reason, activeProvider), which is helpful for selecting the tool. Combined with the identifier and campaignId fallback notes, the definition covers what an agent needs to invoke it correctly; a minor gap is the absence of guidance on combining participantId and participantEmail.

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 only 33% — participantId and participantEmail have no schema descriptions at all. The description compensates by explaining that lookup is 'by GrowSurf participant ID or email' and that campaignId is optional and falls back to GROWSURF_CAMPAIGN_ID, which clarifies the anyOf/required structure the schema encodes only mechanically. It does not, however, add format examples or say what happens if both identifiers are supplied.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Get a participant's payout-destination status') and scopes it across every enabled payout provider (PayPal and/or Wise), which clearly separates it from the write-side sibling growsurf_request_participant_payout_destination_confirmation. It also enumerates the fields returned, so an agent knows exactly what question this tool answers.

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?

Usage is implied — you call it to inspect payout-destination state — and the description does tell the agent it can look up by either participant ID or email, which is a routing hint. However, it never explicitly says when to use this versus the sibling confirmation-request tool, nor when the lookup is not appropriate. Implied rather than stated guidance.

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