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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses the privacy contract (only aggregate counts and average scores are published; free text and contact are read by the team and never published) and the auth requirement ("No account needed"). That is exactly the kind of non-obvious consequence an agent needs before sending user-authored text.

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 sentences, zero filler, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the payload and the privacy terms. Every clause 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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the remaining burdens: what to send, which fields are optional, that no account is required, and how the submitted data is treated. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 only 17%, so the description has to compensate, and it does — it maps each field (topic, satisfaction 1-5, optional ease 1-5, optional free text, optional contact) and marks which are optional. It omits the `kind` agent/human parameter, which is only documented inside the schema, so it is strong but not complete.

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?

Delivers a specific verb and resource — submit feedback about Rightshold — and enumerates the exact payload (topic, satisfaction, optional ease/free text/contact). No sibling tool does anything similar, so it is trivially distinguishable from the read/verify/lookup tools in the list.

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?

"Tell the Rightshold team what is missing, broken or worth more" implies the motivating situations and "No account needed" removes a likely blocker, which is real context. However, it names no alternatives and gives no when-not guidance (e.g. use a support/status tool for outages), so usage is only implied.

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