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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden and discloses almost nothing: whether this is a read-only probe or a mutation, whether it can trigger an interactive login, what a failed verification returns, or whether it has side effects. The single parenthetical only covers ordering, not 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?

One short sentence with the key operational constraint front-loaded in parentheses. No filler, nothing to trim.

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 gating/auth tool with no annotations and no output schema, an agent still needs to know how failures surface and what to do next. The description covers only ordering, leaving the tool's actual contract — including anything about the mobile-session requirement — unexplained.

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?

Only one optional parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains notification_message fully. The description adds nothing about it, which is the baseline-3 case rather than a strength.

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?

States a specific verb ("Verify") and a specific resource ("Slack mobile session"), which is more than a restatement of the name. It doesn't compare itself to any sibling or clarify whether it's an auth handshake vs. a health check, but the intent is recoverable.

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?

"run before other tools" is an explicit ordering/prerequisite instruction that an agent could not infer from the schema or annotations. There is no guidance on what to do if verification fails, or which sibling tools are exempt from the prerequisite.

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