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

Annotations only declare the safety profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false). The description adds critical behavior not in the annotations: the call is fire-and-forget, is never shown to the end user, and merely records feedback for later triage. That is exactly the context an agent needs to understand the side effect's invisibility.

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 front-loaded sentences with no filler; purpose and the tool-vs-app distinction lead. Minor length in the final sentence, but every clause carries usable 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?

With full schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description supplies the remaining essentials: what counts as feedback, how to phrase it, and that it is silent and non-user-facing. Nothing needed to call it 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes slightly beyond the schema by prescribing how to compose the message (name the tool_name, give concrete inputs, state expected vs. actual), which materially improves parameter quality.

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?

Specific verb (report) plus a precisely scoped resource (feedback about the MCP device-control tools THEMSELVES), with an explicit exclusion of the app under test. An agent can immediately tell this apart from app-oriented tools like automation_report or get_visual_review.

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?

Enumerates concrete trigger conditions (confusing, missing capability, behaved like a bug, worked well) and states a when-not ('not about the app under test'). Nothing is left to inference about when to invoke it.

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