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

Annotations already declare this is a non-destructive write that is not idempotent and not open-world. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: it discloses the destination ("reaches the team that maintains these tools") and a data-handling constraint ("never include personal or confidential data"). It does not clarify whether duplicate submissions are merged or what confirmation follows, but the annotation coverage lowers the bar.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its trigger, followed by minimal-required-fields guidance and the privacy constraint. No sentence is redundant or padded.

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 6-parameter intake tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, timing, minimal required input, and the privacy constraint. It omits only downstream behavior (e.g., whether the reporter receives an acknowledgment), a minor gap given no output schema exists.

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 kind, tool, client, message, expected, and operation_id are all fully documented in the schema. The description's only parameter note ("Only kind and message are required") restates the schema's required list rather than adding format or syntax meaning, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (report) and resource (bug, missing feature, wrong answer, unclear docs) scoped to Mudpie's agent tools, which cleanly separates it from siblings like mudpie_search or mudpie_compare. An agent can identify this as the feedback/intake tool without opening the schema.

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?

"right when you hit it" gives clear contextual timing for when to call it, and the scoping to Mudpie's agent tools frames the use case. However, it names no alternative and gives no explicit exclusion (e.g., not for account/billing issues, which belong to mudpie_pricing or mudpie_sign_up).

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