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

The description discloses key behavioral traits beyond annotations: it is keyless and anonymous, requiring only the searchId. It returns 202 with { accepted } and nothing else, and deliberately cannot confirm or deny existence of a search (to avoid leaking info). This adds significant transparency about security, privacy, and the API's response behavior. Annotations are { readOnlyHint: false, openWorldHint: true, destructiveHint: false }, which are consistent with the description (not read-only, open world, not destructive). No contradiction.

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 concise and well-structured, with three sentences that front-load the key purpose, then provide usage and behavioral details. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

Given the tool has 2 parameters with 100% schema coverage, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description is complete. It explains the purpose, usage, behavioral traits (anonymity, response), and the meaning of outcomes. No additional context is needed for an agent to use this tool correctly.

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 schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds value by explaining the purpose of the outcomes array (e.g., a single-element array is the single-report case, batch up to 10), and clarifies the meaning of 'resourceId' and 'contentHash' beyond what the schema provides. It also reinforces the searchId's role. The description adds marginal but useful context.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to report what a prior search was worth, listing the possible outcomes (used, partly used, rejected, regenerated, purchase_declined, or declined to buy). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on post-search feedback, which is distinct from the 'search' tool itself, and from 'submit_feedback' which is likely general feedback.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool: after a prior search, to report the actual outcome. It also provides guidance on not using it? It says 'reporting nothing leaves the loop blind', implying it should always be used after a search. It also explains that an honest 'rejected' is as useful as a 'used', providing context on the value of different reports. No explicit exclusions, but the context is clear.

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