paydirt_ask

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds 'Reads actual responses and returns analysis without taking action,' which reinforces the read-only nature but does not reveal additional behavioral nuances like rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination. With annotation coverage, the bar is lower, so a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the key usage trigger, and contains no redundant or irrelevant information. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and behavior.

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, the description does not need to explain return values. With full parameter documentation, the description sufficiently conveys the tool's purpose and usage context. A minor improvement could be explicit differentiation from paydirt_get_summary or paydirt_get_responses, but the current description is adequate for selection and invocation.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all parameters. The description adds no significant new parameter semantics beyond examples like 'pricing themes or feature requests,' which mirrors the schema's example for the 'question' parameter. Since the schema fully documents each parameter, the baseline of 3 is correct.

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 answers natural-language analytical questions about Paydirt feedback, such as pricing themes or feature requests. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like paydirt_get_responses by emphasizing analysis rather than raw data retrieval, and explicitly notes it takes no action.

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 an explicit trigger condition: 'Use this when the user asks a natural-language analytical question about their Paydirt feedback.' This gives clear guidance on when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, so it stops short of a 5.

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