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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false. The description clarifies this is a non-destructive submission (saving a request), which aligns with annotations and adds context about intent (improving coverage). However, it doesn't disclose whether the request is reversible, requires auth, or what happens after submission beyond basic intent.

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 three sentences and front-loaded with purpose, followed by examples and rationale. Every sentence adds value with minimal waste. Could be slightly tighter, but it's efficient given the examples aid comprehension.

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 feedback-submission tool with annotations covering the safety profile and an output schema present, the description is reasonably complete. The category enum in the schema covers the 'type of missing capability' distinction. With low-side effects (non-destructive submission) and clear parameters, the description adequately supports invocation, though it could mention the optional use_case field.

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 coverage is 67%, meaning the description covers category and request semantics in its text ('missing tool, dataset, or feature', 'concise description of the missing capability'). The use_case parameter is not mentioned in the description at all, though its schema description is clear. The description adds a small amount beyond the schema via examples but doesn't fully compensate for the undocumented use_case parameter.

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 states a clear verb+resource ('submit product feedback', 'Save a product request') for missing tools/datasets/features, with concrete examples (backtesting, options pricing). It distinguishes from siblings like catalog_request and account_request_upgrade through the 'missing capability' framing, though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives.

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 description implies usage via the category field ('missing tool, dataset, or feature') and examples, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like catalog_request or news tools. The 'helps improve coverage' phrasing implies a product-feedback context but no exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools are provided.

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