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

Annotations already convey readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the description does not carry the full burden for safety. It adds a small amount of context by stating that the tool lists handled feedback or fetches a report, but it does not disclose behaviors such as failure semantics, pagination, or rate limits, although the parameter schema describes much of that.

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?

The description is a single efficient sentence that conveys the tool’s core behavior in two clear branches. No filler, redundant phrasing, or scaffolding is present.

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?

The description is compact but adequate because the input schema is exceptionally detailed, including return shapes, batch behavior, missing-id rejection, and default status. The one-sentence description does not need to restate those details; it might only lose minor points for not summarizing the contract mode or container filtering at a high level.

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 fully explains ids, kind, status, contract, feedback_id, and container_id. The description only loosely maps to the list-vs-single variation and adds no parameter meaning beyond what the input schema documents, so the high-coverage baseline 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?

The description names a clear action-resource pair: listing or retrieving platform feedback, with an explicit distinction between list-style access and single-report retrieval. This is sufficient to distinguish it from the analogous write_feedback sibling even without naming it.

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 two usage modes (list all vs retrieve particular reports) are implied by the wording, and the counterpart write_feedback is inferable from the sibling list. However, the description does not explicitly say when-not-to-use this tool, name an alternative, or explain the selection between ids and feedback_id beyond what the schema already covers.

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