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

The description aligns with readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, confirming no side effects. It does not add details about return format or error conditions, but the annotations already cover the key behavioral aspects.

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 a single, focused sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose with no unnecessary verbiage. It is optimally concise.

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 description is adequate for a simple read operation. It specifies the subject (notification settings and events) and the scope (already-connected Slack workspace). Absence of an output schema is acceptable given the tool's simplicity, though it could clarify the exact return payload.

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?

The only parameter 'action' has an enum of ['view'] with a generic description 'Action to perform.' While the schema fully specifies the allowed value, the description adds minimal context beyond what is already evident from the enum.

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 function: viewing notification settings and available events for a connected Slack workspace. It distinguishes it from the sibling slack-write tool by focusing on read-only actions.

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 usage for read-only inspection of Slack configuration. It does not explicitly state when to avoid using it, but the read-only nature is obvious from the verb 'view' and the annotation, making it sufficient for typical use.

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