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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, openWorld=true, idempotent=true, destructive=false, but the description goes far beyond: it discloses a 20/day per-person rate limit, role-agnostic access, exactly what data leaves the client (only message, kind, client – never business records or chat history), and the show-then-approve protocol. This is rich, non-redundant behavioral context.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, followed by usage triggers, the approval protocol, consent, data-scope, and limits. Dense but every sentence carries actionable constraints with no padding.

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 an outbound feedback tool with no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: invocation triggers, consent requirements, data boundary, rate limit, and the approval gate. Nothing material is missing.

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 80%, so the schema documents most params. The description adds consent semantics for reply_ok ('ask before setting... shares their verified email') and reinforces that the message must be the exact user-approved text, adding meaning beyond the field docs.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Send feedback to the Otis team') and enumerates the message kinds. Easily distinguishable from the business/invoice/payment siblings since this is the only user-feedback channel.

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?

Explicitly covers when to offer it ('user wants something Otis cannot do, asks for a feature or hits a problem'), when not to ('never send unprompted'), and the required approval workflow. It also flags the reply_ok consent step, leaving nothing to inference.

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