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

Annotations only declare the safety profile (not read-only, not idempotent, not destructive, closed-world). The description adds genuinely new context beyond that: it relays the comment verbatim without embellishment, is rate-limited per user, and requires no paid entitlement. It omits specifics on the rate limit's threshold, so not 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every clause earns its place by adding either scope, usage routing, or behavioral constraint. No boilerplate or redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the remaining agent-relevant concerns: authentication context (the user's own words), the fidelity constraint, rate limiting, and entitlement requirements. Nothing needed to call it correctly 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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters including the verbatim instruction and ownership constraints. The description restates the non-embellishment rule but adds no syntax, format, or relationship detail beyond the structured fields, so 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 (email) and resource (NeverApply team feedback) and enumerates the feedback categories accepted, which makes it immediately distinguishable from the job/application/profile siblings. An agent can tell what this tool does 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?

The category enumeration (bug, bad listing data, match-quality complaint, feature request, support question) effectively tells the agent which situations route here. It gives clear context but states no exclusions and names no alternative tool for cases that don't fit, so it stops short of a 5.

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