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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false with destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-destructive write. The description usefully adds 'Free, never charged', which is real cost context not present in the structured fields, but says nothing about submission rate limits, whether feedback is reviewed, or what the agent receives back.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose and the scope constraint before the parameter note. The short 'Free, never charged' fragment earns its place as cost information, though the sentence could be tightened slightly further.

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. The description covers purpose, scope, cost, and the two required/optional content fields, leaving only minor gaps such as post-submission handling and any usage limits for a straightforward submission tool.

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 baseline is 3 and the schema already explains every field, including the value of request_id. The description restates that summary is required and one line and that details is optional, adding only marginal meaning beyond the schema's own wording.

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 (submit feedback to AnyAPI) and immediately scopes it as 'non-defect', which separates it from the sibling report_bug. The enumerated cases (API not in catalog, missing result field, confusing docs, improvement) make the intended input content 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?

Gives clear context for when to reach for this tool via four concrete scenarios and the explicit 'non-defect' qualifier that implicitly routes defects to report_bug. It never names the alternative tool outright or states when not to use it, so it stops short of a full when/when-not/alternatives statement.

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