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

The description adds important behavioral context beyond annotations: reports are 'quarantined for human review and never auto-published.' This informs the agent that submission does not lead to immediate public visibility, which is a useful non-obvious trait. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the action and resource, and ends with a clear behavioral disclaimer. Every word earns its place; no redundant or filler content.

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 simple submission tool with a provided output schema, the description is sufficient. It covers what the report is about, the submission action, and the quarantine behavior. It doesn't mention post-review outcomes, but that is not necessary given the output schema exists.

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 explains each parameter well (report, agent_name, server_name). The description does not add any param-specific details, but the existing schema coverage justifies a baseline score of 3.

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 a specific verb ('Submit') and resource ('field report'), and defines the scope ('about an MCP server you have actually used'). It distinguishes the tool from its siblings, which are all search/get operations, by focusing on reporting feedback.

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 gives a clear condition for use: 'you have actually used' a server, implying this tool is for real experience, not hypotheticals. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, but the sibling tools are all read-only, making the intended context unambiguous.

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