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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses critical authorization behavior: non-admins receive a permission error. It also clarifies the data scope (across all users, never tenant business data), adding valuable context not present in schema or 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 a single, dense sentence that leads with the critical 'ADMIN ONLY' warning and immediately states the tool's core function. Every clause adds meaningful information (scope, permission, filtering), with 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 filtered list tool with an output schema and comprehensive annotations, the description covers the essential operational aspects: access control, data scope, and filterable fields. It lacks pagination details, but the output schema likely covers return structure, making the description sufficient for safe and correct use.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description states 'Filter by status, category, or severity,' which directly maps three of the four parameters to their intended usage. It does not mention the 'limit' parameter, but the primary filtering semantics are clearly conveyed, partially compensating for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 the tool's action ('list platform-feedback reports'), the specific resource ('feedback about Meta Council itself, never a tenant's own business data'), and its purpose ('for triage'). It also differentiates itself from sibling tools by explicitly scoping to platform-level feedback and requiring admin privileges.

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 strong usage context: it is ADMIN ONLY, requires an ADMIN_EMAILS account, and is intended for triage of Meta Council feedback. It implicitly contrasts with tenant business data, signaling when not to use it, but does not explicitly name alternative tools or state 'when not to use' in a direct way.

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