growsurf_get_participant_payout_destination

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds substantial behavioral context: it explains what 'activeProvider' means and when it is null, describes the repair reason for bounced/invalidated recipients, and states that status is reported per provider. This goes well beyond the annotations and gives an agent a clear mental model of the tool's behavior.

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 dense and front-loaded with the primary action, then covers return fields and the campaign targeting nuance in a logical order. Every sentence adds value—no fluff, no repetition of annotation info. It is a single paragraph but well-structured and efficient for an agent to parse.

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?

Given that an output schema exists (not shown but indicated), the description does not need to enumerate return format. It covers the key usage scenarios: looking up by ID or email, the provider context, the meaning of activeProvider, and failure states (bounce/invalidation). The default campaignId behavior is explicitly stated. An agent can select and invoke this tool correctly with no gaps.

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% (only campaignId has a description). The description compensates by explaining that participantId or participantEmail are identifiers, reinforcing the anyOf constraint, and fully explaining campaignId's default behavior. It adds meaning to the identifier parameters without going into format details, which is acceptable for a read tool. This strong compensation for low schema coverage merits a 4.

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?

Description opens with a precise verb-resource pair: 'Get a participant's payout-destination status' and immediately clarifies scope (per provider, by ID or email). It lists specific return fields (status, confirmed email, legal recipient type, repair reason, activeProvider) that distinguish it from sibling tool growsurf_get_participant and analytics tools. The target ambiguity (campaignId vs default) is resolved in the last sentence.

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 clearly implies the tool is for checking payout-related state, contrasting with siblings like analytics or activity logs, and explains the campaignId override. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or say 'when not to use', but the purpose is specific enough that an agent would know when to call it. Lacking an explicit exclusion statement keeps it at a 4 rather than 5.

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