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

Annotations only declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false); the description adds genuinely new behavior: personal data and secrets are stripped, IDs/emails/keys are removed before logging, and no authentication is required. It does not say what happens after submission (ticket created, response expected), which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Two tight sentences: the purpose and categories come first, followed by the privacy and auth caveats. No filler or redundant restatement of the name.

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 three-parameter submission tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, privacy handling, and auth requirements adequately. Only the post-submission outcome is left unstated.

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 the enum for 'tool' and the intent/message fields are already documented in the schema. The description adds no format or content guidance beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Tell the Dodo Payments team about a problem with these tools or the docs') and enumerates the feedback categories, which cleanly separates it from the sibling tools search/search_docs/read_docs_page/execute.

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 clear context for when to use it (wrong or missing answer, confusing error, missing feature) and notes no sign-in is needed. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name an alternative channel, but the sibling tools are functionally distinct enough that this is a minor gap.

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