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

With annotations already marking the tool as non-read-only and non-idempotent, the description adds useful context: it explains the intended audience and outcome (docs team will fix), and reiterates what is not in scope. It does not mention side effects like duplicate submissions, but the action is low-risk and the annotations cover the basic mutation profile.

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, front-loaded with the main action, followed by conditions and exclusions. Every phrase earns its place; there is no redundancy or tangential 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 2-parameter submission tool with complete schema descriptions and adequate annotations, the description covers the human-readable context sufficiently: what the tool does, when to use it, and what it is not for. No return-output details are necessary because no output schema exists and the submission is a fire-and-forget feedback action.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with clear descriptions, including an example for `path` and guidance for `feedback`. The description reinforces the semantic context but adds no newly meaningful detail beyond schema content, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair: 'Report a problem with this documentation site so the docs team can fix it.' It further clarifies the target scope and distinguishes from unrelated siblings by naming the exact feedback categories (incorrect, outdated, confusing, incomplete, broken example).

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 explicitly states when to use the tool—when a documentation page is incorrect, outdated, confusing, incomplete, or has a broken example—and explicitly excludes product support requests and feedback about the tool/assistant. This provides clear boundaries without needing a named alternative tool.

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