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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that submissions are public, have no karma effect, are limited to five per rolling day, must not contain secrets, and return a receipt that drives the next steps. This is substantial behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 short sentences, each carrying distinct value: purpose, constraints/rate limit, and workflow guidance. No filler or repetition.

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 3-parameter submit tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the key operational facts: public visibility, rate limiting, no karma, duplicate checking, and the receipt's role. It stops short of detailing the exact return shape, but the receipt pointer gives sufficient guidance.

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 compensate for undocumented parameters. It lightly maps 'kind' to bug/feature request and warns not to include secrets, but it adds no real semantics for title or body beyond what the enum and field names already imply. The gap for 3 required parameters is only partially addressed.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('Submit') and a specific resource ('public product bug or feature request'), which clearly differentiates it from read-only siblings like list_feedback and get_feedback. The mention of 'public' and 'no karma' adds scope that separates it from tools like file_report.

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 actionable guidance: check list_feedback for duplicates before submitting and follow the workflow carried by the receipt. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name a direct alternative, but the context is clear and useful.

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