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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and handles it well. It discloses the scope boundary (gateway not provider), content constraints (no secrets or response data), frequency expectation (once per problem), and the kinds of issues that are in scope, giving the agent a clear behavioral contract.

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 longer than average but every clause earns its place: categories, exclusions, timing, and data safety are all functional. It front-loads the core purpose before the examples, though the list of example issues could be trimmed slightly without losing meaning.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough to call correctly. It explains what to send, which problems are in scope, which belong elsewhere, how often to send, and what must never be included, leaving no important ambiguity for the agent.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage for the single `message` parameter, including its purpose and character limit. The tool description reinforces the 'brief and concrete' expectation but does not add substantial new meaning beyond what the schema already documents.

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 uses the specific verb 'Tell' and names the precise resource 'taskfuel (the gateway, not any provider)', making the target of feedback unmistakable. It also lists concrete issue categories and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool `rate` by excluding single-endpoint behavior, so an agent can tell them apart.

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 clear when-to-use guidance: send when you actually hit something, once per problem. It also gives an explicit when-not-to-use rule by stating that a problem with a single endpoint's own behavior belongs in `rate` instead, which directly routes the agent to the correct sibling.

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