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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so: it discloses what is transmitted ('ONLY the structured fields in this schema... no field for a transcript, a prompt, source code, file contents or coordinates'), the 'at most once' call-limit behavior, the consent prerequisite, and the field-size caps. These are exactly the traits an agent cannot derive from structured fields.

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?

Purpose and the call-gating rule are front-loaded, and the privacy constraints follow in a logical order. The middle sentence is dense and repeats cap information already in the schema, and enumerating the field list at the end is partly redundant, costing it a 5.

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 mutation/feedback tool with no annotations but a full output schema, the description covers purpose, invocation limits, consent requirements, data-exclusion rules and a field inventory. Nothing an agent needs in order to invoke it safely and correctly 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% and the schema already documents every parameter, including the problem 'area' enum and per-field byte caps, so the description's parameter summary is largely redundant. It correctly flags `what_built` as required, but adds no syntax or meaning beyond the schema, which is the baseline-3 case.

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 ('Send MapMap a structured integration retro') and enumerates the content it carries (problems, gotchas, wins, docs gaps), so the agent knows exactly what this tool does. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the semantically adjacent sibling report_map_issue, so a 4 rather than 5.

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 timing and gating conditions: 'Call at most once, after your MapMap integration works or you stop trying, and only if the developer has approved sending feedback to MapMap.' This is a complete when/when-not rule with no inference required.

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