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

Annotations (readOnly=false, destructive=false) are neutral, so the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It adds critical details: submissions are stored per-user, visible only to platform admins, return an id + acknowledgement, and cannot be read back. These are exactly the kind of behavioral traits an agent needs to know.

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 and well-structured, with each sentence serving a distinct purpose: purpose, exclusions, usage timing, and behavioral/parameter notes. There is no fluff or repetition of schema fields; every sentence adds value.

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?

With an output schema presumably covering return values, the description covers the tool's scope, exclusions, trigger conditions, privacy/storage, and context parameter. This is more than sufficient for an agent to decide when and how to use the tool correctly, even with 5 parameters and a nested object.

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?

Only 20% of parameters are described in the schema, and the description partially compensates by specifying what belongs in the context object (tool name, session id, model) and mapping feedback categories (performance, bug, UX) to enum values. However, it does not explain the title, body, or severity parameters, leaving some gaps unanswered.

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 identifies this as a feedback tool for platform issues, listing concrete examples like performance failures, missing capabilities, bugs, and UX/docs gaps. It explicitly distinguishes itself from business-data tools by naming alternatives (create_deal, create_invoice), which sets it apart from sibling tools.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('Use it the moment a tool result, council run, or workflow falls short') and when-not-to-use ('do NOT use this for anything about your own business...use the relevant business tool instead'). It even names alternative tools, giving clear direction.

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