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

Annotations only declare this is a non-read, non-idempotent, non-destructive write. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: the Beleeg team reads submissions to prioritize work, nothing happens automatically, no one replies, and personal details (names, emails, phone numbers) must never be included. It does not mention any rate limits or what the call returns, but the privacy prohibition and no-reply semantics are substantive added context.

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?

The trigger condition is front-loaded in the first sentence and each subsequent sentence carries a distinct constraint (attribution, privacy, no-reply escalation back to the user). The final sentence is long and packs three ideas, but none of it is filler for a tool with this much policy attached.

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 triggers, required content, privacy rules, and the expectation of no follow-up. The three parameters are all documented in-schema. What remains thin is what happens after submission beyond 'the team reads these,' but that is minor for a fire-and-forget feedback tool.

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% and each parameter already carries a description and example (e.g. trying_to's "move all of Saturday's games to Sunday"). The description's 'Say what they wanted and, if one did, which tool fell short' essentially restates the schema fields at a high level, adding intent framing but no new format or constraint detail.

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 description states a specific verb and resource ('Send Beleeg a note') and defines the exact triggering conditions: the assistant cannot do something the person asked for, a tool was confusing, or a wrong answer was given. Siblings (look up, start league, start tournament) are functionally unrelated, so no disambiguation is needed and none is missed.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use conditions and an important counter-instruction: because nothing is done automatically and nobody replies, the agent must still tell the person what could not be done and, where possible, point them to where in Beleeg they can do it themselves. This is exactly the routing decision an agent needs and is not inferable elsewhere.

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