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

The description discloses key behaviors: it forwards to a specific endpoint (POST /api/feedback), returns an { id }, and clarifies that an unknown postId is stored as null without causing a 404 error. With annotations not contradicting (readOnlyHint false confirms mutation, openWorldHint true aligns), this adds valuable behavioral insights beyond annotations.

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, using three sentences to convey purpose, safety, behavior, and parameter hints. It front-loads the primary purpose and gradually addresses details, but the sentence about postId could be streamlined without losing meaning.

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's simplicity (4 params, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is nearly complete. It clarifies behavior, constraints, and endpoint. Minor missing points include confirmation of whether contact is optional and if the response includes any confirmation beyond { id }, but overall it satisfies the needs for an AI agent to invoke 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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description adds marginal value by suggesting users can 'say whatever they like in `message`' and clarifying postId behavior, but this does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema.

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 specifies the verb 'send feedback' and the target resource 'Tenjin', covering multiple topics (bugs, ideas, questions). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by its unique purpose of feedback submission.

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 states that the tool is agent-facing, public, and requires no wallet or signature, providing clear context for when to use it. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the unique feedback focus implies its distinct usage scenario.

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