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

Goes well past the annotations by disclosing rate limits (20 notes per address per day without a key), what changes with a key (recorded against the key and on the owner's ledger), and the downstream effect (a human reads every note; the 'What is coming' list is shaped by them). That is exactly the behavioral context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Three dense sentences with no filler, each contributing purpose, motivation, or constraints. The 'POST /feedback' prefix is slightly gratuitous protocol detail, but it front-loads the action effectively.

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 4-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers intent, field meaning, limits, auth behavior, and consequence. The only modest gap is what a successful submission returns, which an agent might want confirmed.

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 coverage is only 25% (just 'about' is documented), so the description carries real weight: it explains that 'about' can be a tool or page, maps what_happened and what_would_help, and confirms rating is optional with a 1–5 range. It does not add format or length guidance for the two free-text fields beyond what the schema states.

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 ('POST /feedback: a note on a tool or a page, what happened and what would have helped') that is unambiguous, and the action is clearly distinct from every sibling tool, which are all market/network data reads.

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?

Gives clear context for when to use it: when an agent has something to report about a tool or page and what would have helped. It doesn't name explicit exclusions or alternatives, but no sibling competes for this purpose, so the gap is minor.

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