paydirt_slack_status

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds clarity that it reports status without side effects, so the behavior is well understood.

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 compact and information-dense, leading with the main use case and then explaining the output. Slight redundancy with 'completed authorization' could be trimmed, but overall it is well structured.

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 states what is reported (feedback channel and assignment status) and when to use it, which is sufficient for this simple read-only status tool. It does not over-promise or omit critical context.

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 single parameter app_id has a minimal schema description, but the tool description clarifies it is tied to the developer's app. Since schema coverage is 100% and the parameter is simple, the description provides enough context.

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 reports the Paydirt feedback channel and whether every installed form is assigned, and distinguishes it from agent-only delivery. This makes the purpose specific and actionable.

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?

It explicitly says to use this tool when the developer selected Slack or combined delivery and completed authorization, and explicitly says not to call it for agent-only delivery. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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