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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses two important behaviors: showing the final text to the user before sending, and never including secrets/API keys/other people's data. While it doesn't mention return values or error handling, these are minor for a simple send operation, and the stated constraints are critical and well-communicated.

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 description is three concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the usage condition and critical behavioral rules. Every sentence adds distinct value, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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?

For a simple two-parameter tool with a clear schema and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: when to call, what to include, and what constraints to follow. It omits details like success/failure responses, but these are likely self-evident for a feedback send and not critical for correct invocation.

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 only 50% (message has a description, kind does not). The description adds meaning to 'kind' by enumerating 'bug report, idea, other' which matches the enum, and it enriches 'message' with the privacy constraint ('Never include secrets...'). This compensates for the partial schema coverage and clarifies the expected content of both parameters.

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 ('Send'), a resource ('feedback'), and the recipient ('Bilg team'), along with the categories ('bug report, idea, other'). It clearly distinguishes this from any sibling tool, and there is no ambiguity about what action it performs.

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 an explicit trigger condition: 'Only call this when the user explicitly asks to send feedback to Bilg.' It also provides a prerequisite instruction ('Show them the final text first') and a data-handling rule, making it unambiguous when and how to invoke the tool.

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