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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose real behavioral facts: auth is required, the submission is tied to the caller's key, it is not billed, and no SLA is implied. It does not describe what happens after submission (confirmation, rate limits, whether duplicate submissions are deduplicated), which keeps it short of a 5.

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 tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded. Slightly wasteful: "not billed" appears twice ("not billed and not a support-ticket SLA" then "Auth required; not billed"), which could be trimmed without loss.

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, five-parameter submission tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, auth, billing, and follow-up intent adequately. The only gap is what the caller gets back after submitting, but with no output schema there is limited obligation to explain returns.

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 100%, so every parameter including enums and defaults is already documented. The description only loosely echoes the category options ("a bug, a feature request, a docs gap, a billing question") and implies contact_ok via "so we can follow up," adding little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ("Submit free-text feedback about the API") and enumerates the accepted subject matter — bug, feature request, docs gap, billing question — so the agent knows exactly what fits. No sibling tool offers feedback submission, so there is no ambiguity to resolve.

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 draws a clear boundary by noting this is "not a support-ticket SLA," which tells the agent this is not the path for urgent issue escalation. It gives context for use but does not name an alternative tool or state explicit exclusions (e.g., when to use a real support channel instead).

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