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

No annotations provided, so description must convey behavioral traits. It implies submission (not read-only) but does not detail response behavior or side effects. Adequate for a simple feedback tool, but could mention that submission is not reversible or that it creates a ticket.

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?

Two sentences, no unnecessary words. First sentence states purpose and audience; second sentence gives category guidance. Perfectly front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Given 3 params, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is nearly complete. It explains what the tool does, how to use categories, and optional URL. Missing details about response or confirmation, but acceptable for a simple submission tool.

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 covers all 3 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). Description adds extra value by clarifying the default intent for 'feature' and that 'feature' is the default category. This goes beyond the schema, which only describes each field.

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?

Explicitly states the tool is for filing feature requests, bug reports, or general feedback to the Viddler team. Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools, which focus on access, analytics, or video management.

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?

Provides clear guidance on when to use (for feedback) and how to categorize ('feature', 'bug', 'general'). Mentions the feedback goes into the same queue as the in-app widget. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the purpose is narrow enough.

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