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

Beyond the annotations (which only say it is a non-idempotent, non-destructive write), the description discloses a real behavioral trait: personal details and profile content are excluded unless the user asks, and it states a token cost. It still does not say what happens on failure or what is returned, but the privacy handling is substantive value that annotations do not convey.

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 labeled lines (Purpose, When, Cost) front-load the essential information and every sentence carries content. The cost line is terse but intentionally so.

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 an output schema present and full schema coverage, the description need not explain return values, and it covers purpose, trigger, consent, privacy, and cost. The only mild gap is the cryptic 'Under 30 tokens' cost line, which is not explained.

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% and the enum on 'kind' plus the nested 'about' object are fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no format or syntax guidance about 'text' or 'about' beyond what the schema already states.

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?

The description names a specific verb (send feedback) and resource (the user's feedback on searchnapply), enumerates the accepted feedback kinds (wrong answer, fault, suggestion), and identifies the recipient (its team). No sibling tool shares this responsibility, so an agent can disambiguate it immediately.

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 'When:' line gives a clear trigger condition — a problem with searchnapply or its results surfaced — plus a consent gate ('the user agreed to report it'). It never states an explicit when-not or names an alternative, but no sibling tool covers feedback, so the guidance is largely sufficient.

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