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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false). The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: feedback is stored per-agent and propagated as context to future optimizations, which tells the agent the write has lasting downstream effects. It stops short of noting permission requirements or whether feedback is editable/deletable.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action before the enum taxonomy. The feedbackType examples are the only slightly redundant portion versus the schema, but they aid selection and are worth the space.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description adequately covers the effect of the call (per-agent storage, propagation to future optimizations). It omits return shape and whether optimizationId/variantId are needed for certain feedback types, which would help an agent compose a fully valid call.

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 schema already documents all 7 parameters including the enum semantics for feedbackType and rating. The description's explanation of reaction/constraint/direction largely restates what the schema's feedbackType description provides, so it adds examples but little net new semantics.

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 and resource ('Add feedback ... on an optimization result') and immediately scopes what feedback comprises (rating, comment, or both). This distinguishes it from the nearest sibling add_insight_feedback, which targets insights rather than optimization results.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance for each of the three feedbackType values with concrete examples ('never remove the disclaimer', 'focus on reducing hallucination'). It does not, however, state when NOT to use this tool or how it differs in practice from add_insight_feedback, so routing between the two feedback tools is left to inference.

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