paydirt_finish_setup

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it returns immediately (no long-polling), does not loop or sleep on pending state, and securely saves credentials when ready. It also states the return includes a 'complete host-app installation, Slack, build, and verification contract,' which is useful even with an output schema. The annotations already indicate non-readOnly and idempotent, so this is complementary, not contradictory.

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 when-to-use condition, and every clause serves a purpose: triggering context, behavior (returns immediately, no loop), and outcome (saves credentials, returns contract). No filler or redundancy.

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 complex setup tool with 8 parameters and an output schema, the description provides the essential context: the exact trigger (after user opens authorization URL), the single-session check behavior, the no-polling directive, and the final outcome. It does not describe what happens if the session is invalid or expired, but that is likely covered by error responses or output schema. Overall, it's well-rounded and sufficient for an agent to use it appropriately.

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 provides descriptions for all 8 parameters, achieving 100% coverage. The description itself adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond referencing session_id as coming from begin_setup, which is already stated in the schema. Therefore, it meets the baseline for high schema coverage but does not exceed it.

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: completing setup after the user has opened the authorization URL. It specifically identifies the action ('checks one setup session'), the resource ('setup session'), and the outcome ('saves credentials and returns the complete contract'), distinguishing it from the sibling paydirt_begin_setup.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this when the user has opened the authorization URL returned by paydirt_begin_setup,' giving a precise trigger condition. It also provides a critical exclusion: 'If pending, do not loop or sleep,' which guides the agent's behavior in a polling context. This is strong usage guidance.

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