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

Annotations already declare it is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent write, and the description does not contradict that. It adds genuinely useful context beyond the annotations: 'Answers are private,' which tells the agent about data handling, plus a reminder that every field is optional. It stops short of describing storage or who else sees the data.

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, front-loaded with the most decision-relevant word ('Optional'), then the honesty framing, then the privacy assurance. No filler and nothing repeated.

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 low-stakes, all-optional feedback form with no output schema, the description covers optionality, tone of response, and privacy. It does not say what happens after submission or whether a response is returned, but for this tool class that omission is minor.

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%, and each field's schema description already explains its content and accepted values (yes/maybe/no, etc.). The description only restates that all fields are optional, which the schema already conveys via zero required parameters, so this is the baseline 3 rather than added value.

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 uses a concrete verb phrase and resource: 'answer a few questions for the owner of Latent Spa,' which clearly identifies this as submitting feedback. It is obviously distinct from the read-only siblings (explore_warm_bath, list_experiences, read_experience) since none of them write anything, though the description never says so 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:' front-loads when to use it, and 'honest answers, including no, help most' sets the expectation for the response, including that declining is acceptable. There is no comparison to alternatives, but no sibling competes for this action, so the guidance is adequately complete.

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