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

Annotations only declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=true; the description adds real behavior the agent could not infer: identity comes from the visitor pass (never a user id) and contact_email is required for unsigned visitors because otherwise there is no fix-notification channel. It does not cover rate limits or what the tool returns, but for a create call it is well above the annotation baseline.

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: purpose first, then the call-once and confirmation guardrails, then the identity/email constraint. Every sentence carries a distinct rule with no filler, though the final sentence could be marginally tighter.

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 7-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical non-obvious behaviors (single invocation, confirmation gate, implicit identity, conditional email requirement). It is complete enough to call correctly, with only secondary params left to the schema, which already documents them thoroughly.

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?

With 100% schema coverage the baseline is 3, and the description adds genuine semantics beyond it: it clarifies that no user-id parameter should ever be passed (identity is implicit from the visitor pass) and reinforces the conditional requirement on contact_email. The remaining params (locale, subject, message, transcript, page_url) are left entirely to the schema.

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 and resource ("Record a feedback ticket") plus the content scope (question, problem, suggestion) and the owning team, which cleanly separates it from siblings like add_feedback_message or close_feedback_ticket. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 precondition ("only after the person confirmed the wording you read back to them") and an explicit when-not ("Call it ONCE"), which is strong usage guidance. It does not route the agent to an alternative tool for follow-ups or lookups, so it does not reach the alternatives-aware top band.

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