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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two genuinely useful behavioral facts: the response includes aggregate totals/average and that pagination is cursor-based. It omits ordering, default limit, and page-size behavior, so it adds value but stays thin.

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 compact clauses with zero filler, and the content description is front-loaded before the pagination note. Every word carries information.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema and annotations covering safety, the description tells an agent what comes back and how paging works. However, with 0% parameter documentation it should have said more about qrId, limit defaults, and result ordering to be fully self-sufficient.

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 description coverage is 0% across three parameters (qrId, limit, cursor). The description only alludes to the cursor parameter via 'Cursor-paginated' and says nothing about qrId's role or limit's bounds (schema caps it at 200), so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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?

Names the resource precisely (ratings and comments on a feedback QR's page) and states the returned aggregate (total and average rating), which goes beyond a bare 'list feedback'. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from near-siblings like scans_list or leads_list, but no sibling covers this resource, so confusion risk is low.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. that an existing QR with feedback is required), and no mention of alternatives. The only usage hint is the trailing 'Cursor-paginated', which implies how to iterate but not when to call the tool or how to start the cursor.

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