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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It details all verification steps (network, token contract, wallet, amount, confirmation, duplicate replay protection, sender match) and the exact outcomes on success (record donation, increment funded_amount, return donation_id, status, tx_hash). This provides complete transparency.

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 concise yet comprehensive, containing exactly 100 words. It starts with the most critical information ('Step 2 of the MCP donation flow'), then lists inputs, verification steps, and outputs. Every sentence provides necessary detail 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?

The tool has no output schema, but the description fully explains return values (donation_id, status 'completed', tx_hash) and side effects (increment campaign funded_amount). All four required parameters are addressed. Given the tool's complexity and lack of annotations, the description provides complete context for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists all four required parameters (campaign_id, amount, reasoning, tx_hash) and provides context for each: campaign_id is the target, amount is the donation value, reasoning is likely a justification, and tx_hash is the on-chain transaction identifier. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type-only definition.

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 states the tool's purpose as 'Step 2 of the MCP donation flow' and explicitly describes its function: verifying on-chain payments and recording donations. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'donate' by indicating its sequential role, and from other tools by focusing on donation confirmation.

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 explicitly places the tool in a two-step flow as 'Step 2', guiding the agent to use it after 'donate'. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the sequential context is clear and sufficient for correct usage.

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