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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=false. The description adds real value beyond them: submission needs no key and costs no quota, and personal data should be excluded. It does not say whether the submission is one-way or whether any acknowledgement or ticket identifier comes back.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what to report and followed by specificity and privacy constraints plus the cost note. Every clause carries information; there is no filler.

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 six-parameter, one-required submission tool with no output schema and rich annotations, the description covers purpose, content quality, privacy and cost. The only meaningful gap is what happens after submission, since no output schema exists to explain the response.

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 83%, so the schema already explains message, agent, blocking, endpoint and use_case. The description reinforces message content (league, stat, field, intent) and the privacy constraint, which meaningfully shapes what goes into that field. It says nothing about the kind enum, the blocking flag, or endpoint, which remain schema-only.

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 states a specific action and enumerates the exact things to report: missing data or features, wrong data, or anything confusing. It is unmistakably distinct from the data-retrieval siblings. It stops short of naming the destination explicitly (the team), leaving that to the title.

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?

It gives clear when-to-use conditions (data or feature you needed and could not get, wrong data, confusing behavior) plus content guidance: be specific about league, stat, field and intent, and omit personal data. No alternative tool is named, but no sibling overlaps this submit-feedback role, so there is nothing to route away from.

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