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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive write with no open-world access, and the description adds only the privacy constraint "No case details." It does not disclose what a submission creates, whether a match_id or referral_id is required, what status_token authorizes, or what happens on resubmission.

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 with no filler, and the scope of collected ratings is front-loaded. The second sentence ("No case details.") is a high-value constraint rather than padding.

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 12-parameter tool with zero required parameters and three ambiguous satisfaction fields, the description leaves the agent guessing which identifiers and ratings to supply. The presence of an output schema removes the need to explain return values, but the input-side guidance is still thin.

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 only 8% (just the comment maxLength note), so the description must carry parameter meaning and largely does not. It names rating topics like "satisfaction" but never disambiguates satisfaction_match vs satisfaction_process vs satisfaction_attorney, and says nothing about match_id, referral_id, or status_token — the identifiers the call likely depends on.

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 names the resource (feedback ratings on a match/introduction) and enumerates the dimensions collected, so an agent can tell what the tool records. It is distinguishable from siblings like request_attorney_introduction or get_referral_status, though it never states that distinction explicitly.

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?

"Optional" is the only usage signal; there is no statement of when submitting feedback is appropriate, whether it can be repeated or revised, or what the alternative is if the caller only wants to read referral state. An agent must infer the trigger condition entirely.

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