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

Annotations describe a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation, and the description adds helpful real-world context: feedback is submitted to the docs team so they can fix the issue. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them. It leaves out details like confirmation behavior or persistence, but with annotations present this is a reasonable level of disclosure.

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 three tight sentences: the action and intended effect, the concrete use cases, and the exclusions. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no redundant or filler language.

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 simple two-required-parameter feedback tool with no enums or nested objects, the description is complete. It explains the tool's purpose, when to use it, what not to use it for, and the response-like outcome ('docs team can fix it'), so an agent has enough context to select and invoke it correctly.

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%, with both 'path' and 'feedback' already well documented, including an example path and guidance on what kind of feedback to provide. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Report a problem with this documentation site' for the docs team. It also clearly separates this tool from search/query siblings by framing it as feedback about documentation content, not product support or feedback about the tool/assistant. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly lists when to use it: when a documentation page is incorrect, outdated, confusing, incomplete, or has a broken example. It also gives clear exclusions, such as product support requests and feedback about the tool/assistant. However, it does not name the sibling query/search tools as the alternative, so an agent must infer the routing from the sibling names.

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