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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description goes well beyond them: it discloses newest-first ordering, the exact status vocabulary, and the non-obvious 'notices ... shown only once' behavior with an instruction to surface them first. This is exactly the kind of side-effect disclosure annotations cannot convey.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then usage and relaying behavior; every sentence carries information and nothing is redundant. It is a dense single paragraph with multiple embedded instructions, which slightly reduces scannability but not efficiency.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (text, category, status values, reply) and explaining the transient notices mechanic. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result 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 coverage is 100% and the single limit parameter is fully documented in the schema (range 1-50, default 20). The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the 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 (List) and precise resource (feedback this workspace has sent to the LivePage team), plus scope and ordering (newest first) and the returned field set. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_feedback and send_feedback_to_livepage without needing to open any 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?

Gives an explicit trigger: 'Call it when the user asks what happened to a suggestion,' and even prescribes follow-up behavior when a reply or shipped status appears. It lacks an explicit contrast against sibling tools (e.g. list_feedback), so it stops short of a 5, but the usage context is concrete and actionable.

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