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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that a human team reads every submission and that it consumes no quota, which is genuine value. However, it omits what happens after submission, whether the submitter is identified, whether follow-up is possible, and whether the call is fire-and-forget.

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 short sentences and roughly seventeen words, with the purpose front-loaded and the reassurances after. Nothing is padded and every sentence carries a distinct fact.

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 no output schema, purpose, audience and cost are covered, so the core is there. The undefined `contact` parameter and the absence of any post-submission behavior leave meaningful gaps for an agent deciding what to put in the payload.

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 compensate for all three parameters and does not. The enum in `kind` is self-describing, but `message` has no guidance on scope, length, or expected content, and `contact` is entirely unexplained — the agent cannot tell whether it is an email, a handle, or whether supplying it enables a reply.

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?

"Tell the team what is missing or wrong" states a concrete action and the kind of input it accepts (defects and gaps), which separates it cleanly from every sibling tool (watches, props, events, history). It never uses a send/report verb explicitly, leaning on the tool name for the action, but the intent is unambiguous.

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?

The phrase "what is missing or wrong" implicitly defines the trigger for calling it, but there is no explicit when-to-use framing, no mention of when not to use it, and no reference to any alternative channel. Adequate but leaves the agent to infer.

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