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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and adds meaningful context: it commits both JSON and Markdown artifacts, requires NIP-98 signing with author_npub, and enforces publication under the author's own name. It does not disclose overwrite/conflict behavior or validation failure modes, but the core side effects and authentication requirement are clear.

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 three tight sentences, front-loading the core action, then side effects, then the authentication constraint. Every sentence adds useful information with no filler.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and an output schema, the description provides the essential behavioral context: artifact creation, signed-request requirement, and author identity enforcement. It could be more complete by noting overwrite behavior or validation expectations, but return values are covered by the output schema.

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 the schema already documents all five parameters. The description reinforces that author_npub is used for signing and that campaign_markdown may be generated, but it does not add substantial semantics beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Publish a pricing campaign') and names the target community, clearly distinguishing it from read-oriented siblings like get_campaign and list_campaigns. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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 implies when to use the tool by describing publication, but it does not explicitly contrast it with siblings such as list_campaigns or get_campaign, nor does it state when not to use it. The signing requirement is a constraint, not usage guidance.

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