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

The description provides strong behavioral transparency: it emphasizes the anonymous nature, explicitly states no confirmation is needed, clarifies it respects the user's opt-out, and details what data is included vs excluded. The annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false) leave room for ambiguity about side effects, but the description's explicit 'content-free' and 'anonymous' disclosure adds significant context about what gets transmitted and what doesn't.

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 compact yet information-dense: three sentences cover purpose, trigger conditions, data restrictions, and the no-confirmation behavioral guarantee. Punctuation and capitalization (ANONYMOUS, NEVER) effectively highlight the most critical constraints. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy. The front-loading of the purpose and trigger states is excellent.

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 telemetry/feedback tool with zero required behavior on the user-facing side, the description is complete. It covers when to fire, what to include, what to exclude, the anonymous nature, confirmation behavior, and opt-out respect. The output schema (if it exists) plus the input schema's enum coverage handle parameter typing. The privacy constraints, which are the highest-risk aspect, are exhaustively detailed.

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 coverage is 100%, meaning every parameter has a schema description. The description adds clarity on friction_type and error_category by emphasizing to send 'ONLY the category + the tool name', and explicitly names tool_attempted with an example ('list_emails'). However, most parameter semantics are fully covered by the schema's enum-based descriptions, so the description adds marginal but useful emphasis on what should be flagged as most relevant.

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 clearly states what the tool does: 'Send an ANONYMOUS, content-free signal when an LMCP tool fails, returns nothing useful, the user seems frustrated, or you could not accomplish what they asked.' It uses a specific verb+resource ('send a signal') and specifies the trigger conditions. It also clearly distinguishes from sibling feedback tools like report_problem and request_feature by emphasizing the anonymity and content-free nature.

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 provides clear when-to-use guidance with explicit trigger conditions (tool fails, returns nothing useful, user seems frustrated, could not accomplish the task). It states what to send ('ONLY the category + the tool name') and what NOT to send ('NEVER the user's request... any personal data'). While it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, the 'report_problem' sibling exists and the description effectively differentiates this as the lightweight anonymous version.

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