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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing real consequences: one report per ask/result with 'the first one counts', that flags from several accounts hide a result pending review, that reuse counts aggregate across accounts, and that publishers see counts but never who asked. These are substantive behaviors an agent could not infer from readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint alone.

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?

Front-loads the core action and the required identifiers, then the report rules. It is dense but every sentence (idempotency, flag consequence, privacy) carries information; slightly long rather than wasteful.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The description covers what an agent needs to call it correctly plus the side effects of reporting and flagging, and the privacy model. Nothing material is missing.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the ask_id/result_id/reason/self-reported fields but adds little syntax beyond what the schema already documents (the reason enum grouping into 'why not' vs. 'flag' is also present in the schema description).

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Record feedback on a result an ask returned', with the identifying keys (ask_id, result_id). It is clearly distinguished from the many city_room_* and city_ask siblings, though it does not explicitly name a sibling it is not.

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?

Usage is implied by the flow (this is the follow-up report to a result city_ask returned) but never stated as 'call this after using/declining a result'. There are no explicit when-not conditions or named alternatives, only the constraint that only the first report per ask+result counts.

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