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 the 20-minute submission deadline, that late feedback is rejected, that eligible feedback can refund 1 credit, and that refunds are capped daily per website and per team. It also names the return fields (submission status, feedback ID, accounting fields). It does not cover auth requirements or idempotency/retry behavior, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

Purpose and the general-shape instruction are front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by the Alexandria special case and then the timing/refund consequences — a sensible ordering. The middle sentence is long and packs several unrelated requirements together, but there is little true filler.

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 an 18-parameter, nested-object tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the two required parameters and both main flows clearly, and it does describe return fields in prose. It nonetheless leaves many optional-but-meaningful parameters (pageNumbers, missingContent, valuableSources, tags, note) unexplained, so an agent cannot confidently populate a rich submission.

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 only 6% across 18 parameters, so the description must compensate, and it explains endpoint, jobId, rating, issues, objective, rationale, requestedWebsite, providerFeedback and capabilityFeedback plus the issue code list. However, it says nothing about url, note, tags, pageNumbers, missingContent, valuableSources, querySuggestions or the metadata object, leaving nearly half the surface undocumented in both places.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb and resource: 'Submit concise quality feedback for a completed search, scrape, parse, or map job,' and enumerates the eligible job types. It is clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from the closely-named sibling firecrawl_search_feedback, leaving the agent to guess which feedback tool applies to a search job.

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 concrete selection criteria for the alternative 'alexandria' mode: set endpoint to `alexandria`, omit jobId, and supply requestedWebsite/objective/rationale/rating, plus a timing window ('within 20 minutes'). It also tells the caller what to omit ('omit large page contents and raw outputs'). It stops short of stating when to use this tool versus firecrawl_search_feedback, which is the one remaining ambiguity.

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