paydirt_get_responses

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by disclosing the default status filter (completed), the recommended incremental read pattern using 'since' and 'updated_at', and a safety warning against automatic actions. No contradictions.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and every phrase adds meaning. No redundant or filler information; concise yet informative.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers what data is returned (raw conversations, Q/A turns, etc.), the default status filter, and a key usage pattern. It is sufficient for the moderate complexity, though it could mention pagination or return format more explicitly.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds extra semantic value beyond the schema by explaining how to use 'since' with 'updated_at' for incremental reads, which is not in the schema. This elevates the score to 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?

The description clearly identifies the tool as retrieving raw feedback conversations, exact Q/A turns, input type, subscription metadata, and a read-only inbox cursor. The verb 'get' and resource 'responses' are specific, and the detail about raw vs. summary data distinguishes it from siblings like paydirt_get_summary.

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 states when to use the tool ('when the user or coding agent needs raw feedback conversations...') and provides operational guidance (incremental reads with since, never take action automatically). It does not name specific alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear.

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