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

Annotations only declare the generic profile (not read-only, not idempotent, not destructive). The description adds genuinely useful behavior the annotations cannot convey: it returns an acknowledgement with feedback_id, and it discloses that secrets, emails, Territory Solution JSON, GeoJSON and account/CSV tables are stripped before storage. That sanitization contract directly shapes what the agent should put in the text.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then the return value, then the sanitization caveat. Every sentence adds distinct information and none is redundant.

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 not explaining the return shape is acceptable, and the description still names feedback_id. However, for a 15-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions, the absence of any field-level guidance leaves the agent guessing on most optional inputs, which caps completeness at adequate.

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?

There are 15 parameters at 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the full documentation burden and does not meet it. It never mentions category, severity, confidence, product area, related_tool, include_context, or which fields are required, offering only a generic hint that the text should describe what happened rather than contain data.

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 ("Sends product feedback to EasyTerritory") and immediately enumerates the concrete situations that qualify: blocked/partial workflow, workaround, confusing response, missing capability. No sibling tool in the list does anything similar, so it is unambiguously distinguishable.

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 enumerated triggers (blocked workflow, workaround, confusing response, missing capability) effectively tell the agent when to reach for this tool. It stops short of explicit exclusions or routing against alternatives, but there is no competing sibling for feedback, so the omission is minor.

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