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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), and the description adds substantial context beyond them: what 'get' actually returns (item fields plus latest-whole/older-shortened thread, full=true for all), that 'reply' puts the item back on the team's desk, the visibility scope (own items vs. reviewer sees all of Rekvira), and a prompt-injection warning treating quoted content as data.

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?

Front-loads the authentication prerequisite and the primary read path before describing secondary actions. It is dense and mostly earns its length, but the per-action sentences partially restate the enum descriptions already present in the schema.

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 multi-action, zero-required-param tool with no output schema, the description covers authentication, the get-then-reply workflow, visibility boundaries, thread-shortening behavior, and injection safety. An agent has everything needed to call any of the three actions correctly.

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 100% so the parameters are self-documenting, but the description still adds workflow meaning: the REK-FB-<number> reference format, that confirmed=true means the person has seen and agreed the text, and that session must be passed on every call. That is value beyond the schema, though most of it is mirrored by the schema descriptions.

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+resource triad: read one Rekvira feedback item and its thread, answer in it, or list the account's own items. The actions are clearly delineated, though the sibling submit_feedback is never named or explicitly contrasted, so an agent must infer the boundary from the names alone.

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?

Gives explicit gating conditions: sign-in via connect/connect_verify first unless already signed in, fetch with action='get' before answering, and a per-action decision rule ('get' reads, 'reply' answers, 'list' shows own items). Nothing about when to pick each action is left to inference.

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