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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It does state that the campaign is owned by the token's user and requires mcp:campaigns:write or mcp:*, which gives useful auth context. However, it does not describe what happens upon success, whether the operation is on-chain, or any side effects beyond creation. The mutation aspect is implied by 'Create' but not elaborated.

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 two concise sentences that convey purpose, ownership, and permission requirements without any filler. It is front-loaded and every sentence adds value.

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 is complex with 17 parameters and no output schema or annotations. The description covers the core purpose and auth, but given the complexity, it could mention expected return behavior or implications of creating a fundraiser (e.g., on-chain interaction). The comprehensive schema partially compensates, but the description alone is not fully complete for an agent to invoke correctly without additional inference.

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%, with each parameter already documented. The description adds the ownership context tied to accessToken but does not provide additional parameter-level semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter details.

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 'Create' and identifies the resource as a 'fundraiser campaign' owned by the dashboard user behind the token. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like update_campaign and list_my_campaigns.

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 provides clear context that this tool is for creating a new campaign and explicitly notes the required permission scope. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the creation context is unambiguous, so no exclusions are strictly necessary.

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