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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is partially covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the report is routed to priority research and 'Feedback alone does not change or quarantine published knowledge,' which sets correct expectations about side effects that annotations do not 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?

Three tight sentences with no filler, front-loaded with the core action. Efficient, though it spends a sentence on the caveat before clarifying the inputs it accepts.

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 not be explained, and the description covers purpose plus the key behavioral caveat. However, with 0% schema coverage and a nested context object plus a revision_refs array, the input side is under-specified for a tool of this complexity.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it largely does not. It loosely gestures at question/context/reason, but never explains the nested context object (model, vendor, version, runtime_mode, operating_system, shell_environment), the revision_refs UUID array, or length limits — a substantial gap for a 4-parameter tool with a nested object.

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 clear verb+resource: it records the original network question for priority research when an answer is incomplete or incorrect. An agent can tell what it produces, but it never distinguishes this from the sibling submit_feedback, leaving sibling selection ambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied ('Provide missing context or explain why an answer was not useful') rather than explicit. No condition tells the agent when to choose this over submit_feedback or request_expert_answer, so routing between sibling feedback tools remains guesswork.

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