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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate those. The description adds useful behavioral context: it explains what kind of content is expected, that severity defaults to 'medium', and that context can be a JSON-encoded string. It doesn't describe side effects (e.g., whether feedback is stored, emailed, or anonymous), but the annotations cover the safety profile and the description adds meaningful context beyond them.

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?

The description is a single dense paragraph that front-loads the purpose and usage guidance, then lists parameters. It's efficient and every sentence earns its place, though it could be slightly more scannable with line breaks. No fluff or repetition.

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 feedback-submission tool with 5 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is complete enough. It covers what to submit, when to use it, what not to use it for, and parameter semantics. The only minor gap is not describing what happens after submission (e.g., confirmation, storage), but that's not essential for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 schema already documents all 5 parameters. The description adds value by explaining the intended use of 'message' ('what's wrong and ideally what you'd expect instead'), clarifying 'tool_name' with an example, and noting that 'context' is a JSON-encoded string. It also states the required parameters and the default for severity, which goes beyond 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 ('Submit feedback'), a clear resource ('about Hjarni itself'), and explicitly distinguishes from notes-create ('Do NOT use this for the user's own notes or knowledge'). It also lists concrete example categories, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 description explicitly says when to use this tool ('when something about the MCP server, a tool, or the product behavior is worth flagging') and when NOT to use it ('Do NOT use this for the user's own notes or knowledge — those belong in notes-create'). It also names the alternative tool, which is strong guidance.

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