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

The description discloses important side effects beyond annotations: 'This creates a support record and can notify Uwear staff' and 'return a private receipt.' It also adds privacy boundaries (no credentials, secrets, raw payloads, private URLs). Annotations are not contradicted; readOnlyHint=false aligns with 'creates a support record.'

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by concise and necessary usage constraints. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or fluff.

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 covers purpose, side effects, when to call, and content restrictions, which is comprehensive for a mutation tool with no output schema. However, it only vaguely mentions 'return a private receipt' without specifying the receipt format or further confirmation behavior, leaving slight ambiguity about the return value.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds general constraints about message content ('never include...') but does not provide additional per-parameter meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions. It does not compensate significantly for any coverage gap, but none exists.

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 'Submit a bug report or feature request to Uwear and return a private receipt,' which is a specific verb+resource combination and clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_art_direction or create_tag. It also mentions the return behavior, adding useful scope.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call it only when the user explicitly asks to submit, send, or report feedback, or after they confirm the exact summary.' It also provides clear when-not-to-use rules: 'Never submit automatically because an error occurred' and forbids including sensitive data. This is thorough and preempts misuse.

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