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

Annotations already disclose non-read-only, open-world behavior. The description aligns and adds context that feedback is sent to the 'docs team' and is scoped to documentation content. It could go deeper on what happens after submission (e.g., tracking, response), but the basic behavioral expectation is well-defined.

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?

Two sentences, no redundant phrases, and each clause contributes. It front-loads the action along with the purpose and then adds necessary exclusions. This is an well-structured description that wastes no tokens.

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 two-parameter feedback tool with no output schema, the description tells the agent when to use it, what it is not for, and what kind of feedback is relevant. It is a self-contained definition that gives sufficient context to invoke the tool correctly by making the boundaries crystal clear.

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 descriptions cover 100% of the parameters and already explain 'path' and 'feedback' with examples and examples. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the full burden.

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 gives a specific verb ('Report a problem') and identifies the exact resource ('documentation site') with its intended scope. It clearly enumerates the types of issues accepted (incorrect, outdated, confusing, incomplete, broken example) and differentiates itself from sibling search tools.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?

This scores 5 because it explicitly states when to use it ('Use when a documentation page is...') and when not to use it ('not for product support requests or feedback about this tool or assistant'). This avoids the common confusion between the document-search siblings and this feedback tool.

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