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

Annotations mark this as a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent write, and the description adds the missing context: consent is required, anonymity is accepted, and personal/student/personnel/confidential data must never be included. These privacy and consent constraints are exactly the kind of behavioral detail annotations cannot express.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before the operating rules and the privacy constraint. Dense but every sentence carries a distinct instruction; no filler.

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 return values need no explanation, and the consent/privacy rules are well covered. However, with six parameters at 0% schema coverage and two enums, the description should say something about choosing a feedback_type or sentiment to be fully sufficient.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter load, and it only covers two of six (request ID and data version). It says nothing about what sentiment 'good/bad/mixed' means, how feedback_type categories differ, or what client_id identifies, leaving the opaque client_id pattern entirely unexplained.

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?

Opening sentence gives a specific verb (report) and a precise resource/scope: wrong, stale, incomplete, or failed results plus feature requests. That clearly separates it from the query/search siblings, though it never names another tool explicitly.

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?

It gives real operating instructions: ask the operator to file issues here, explain the exact fields, and submit only with consent. That establishes a clear precondition for invocation, but it offers no explicit when-not guidance or alternative destinations.

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