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

Annotations cover readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, but the description adds substantially more: which sources are read (Hacker News comments, GitHub issues, App Store reviews), that counts come from a 90-day sample of public posts, that results are cached for six hours, and that per-source status is returned. This is exactly the context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then examples, then sources and return shape. Every sentence carries information, though the enumerated return fields and the example list make it longer than strictly needed.

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 single-param tool with a full output schema, the description supplies the non-obvious operational facts an agent needs: the 90-day sampling window, the six-hour result cache, and per-source status flags. Nothing material is missing.

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% for the single 'product' parameter, so the schema already documents name format and the GitHub/App Store enrichment behavior. The description's 'Pass product, a name such as "Claude Code"' largely restates it, so the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('count what people complain about and praise for a product') and immediately distinguishes itself from siblings like submit_feedback and get_feedback_reply. An agent can select it without opening the schema.

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?

Provides concrete example queries ('what do people complain about with Cursor?', 'is Claude Code well liked?') that make the intended use case unambiguous. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when NOT to use it versus daily_digest or latest_events.

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