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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, enumerating the status values, the extra return fields (reply, distinct_agent_count), the re-grouping behavior on the grouped report, the specific error outcomes (forbidden / not_your_filing / not_found), and the security note that title/message come back under _untrusted.

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?

A single dense paragraph that is front-loaded with the core action and stays on topic throughout. It runs slightly long with nested details, but each clause (statuses, error cases, trust warning) carries real information.

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 correctly assumes the burden of describing return values (status, reply, distinct_agent_count) and error states, so an agent needs nothing more to interpret results or handle failures.

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 parameter's schema description already says where the filing_id comes from, so the description largely repeats it. The added auth framing is behavioral rather than parameter-specific, leaving only baseline value.

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 precise verb+resource (retrieve the status of a feedback filing) and immediately names the sibling tools (sendFeedback, reportListing) that produce the input. An agent can distinguish it from myListingFeedback and related tools 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?

Explains the precondition (needs your API key) and the workflow context (pass the filing_id you got from sendFeedback or reportListing), which routes the agent from the write tools to this read tool. It does not explicitly name when NOT to use it versus similar status tools like myListingFeedback, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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