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

Annotations only say it is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-open-world, non-idempotent call. The description goes well beyond that: free, no profile needed, only the operator reads it, never shown publicly, 2000-character cap, and an explicit warning not to include secrets.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and recipient before the constraints. Every sentence carries a distinct rule (permission gating, audience, length, secrets, contact) with no 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?

With only two simple string parameters and no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it is, who sees it, permission to send, character budget, and a secrets warning. No relevant gap remains.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description's 'up to 2000 characters' and 'give a contact only if a reply is wanted' largely restate the schema maxLength and contact description, adding safety framing rather than new parameter semantics.

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 (send) plus the resource and its exact destination (a suggestion, bug report or feature idea to the person who runs Agent Anthill). This is clearly distinguishable from every sibling, which are all read/write/info tools over other Anthill resources.

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 gating condition: 'Only when your user asks you to send it,' which tells the agent when not to invoke it. It also conditions the contact parameter on whether a reply is wanted, so both parameters have usage context.

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