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

Annotations confirm read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: what is filtered out (this_piece-scoped asks, asks from reports with a linked exclusion), ordering, the cap of 25, and that it reads the newest 200 reports.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and the sentences are information-dense with little waste, but the single block is long and packed with filtering, ordering, and workflow detail that could be more structured. Still, nearly every clause carries operational weight.

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, yet the description still orients the agent (state values ready/none, appUrl return, field meanings) and fully covers the workflow a caller must execute. Nothing needed to invoke and act on this tool 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?

There are zero input parameters, so per the baseline this is a 4. The description adds no parameter detail because none exists, and correctly focuses on output/behavior instead.

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: it lists brand rules suggested from drafting feedback (report_feedback). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings report_feedback (source data), save_content_exclusion, and update_brand_profile (the save paths), and even clarifies 'This tool saves nothing.'

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?

Explicitly describes the downstream workflow: show each suggestion to the person, ask before saving, then use save_content_exclusion or update_brand_profile on a yes and save nothing on a no. It names alternatives and the exact condition for each.

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