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

Annotations already declare this is a non-destructive, closed-world write, and the description adds real behavioral context beyond that: rate/duplication policy ('one report per problem'), sequencing ('after you've answered the user'), and a privacy constraint ('don't include the user's personal details or private code'). It does not say what happens after submission (confirmation, whether the user sees it), keeping it short of a 5.

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 in the first clause, followed by invocation triggers and then constraints, so an agent can stop reading early. The middle sentence is long and clause-dense but each clause maps to a distinct trigger, so little is wasted.

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?

For a three-parameter, no-output-schema feedback tool, the description covers purpose, triggers, preconditions, deduplication and privacy — everything needed to call it correctly. The only gap is post-call behavior (what confirmation or effect to expect), which is minor for a fire-and-forget report.

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%, so all three parameters are already documented, and the description adds only indirect meaning (that a 'hard to find' case should be reported, implying the query/page fields). It offers no format hints for page IDs versus URLs beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 — telling the WebSupergoo team about a documentation problem — and the framing makes it clearly distinct from the sibling read/search tools (search, fetch, contents, lookup_api). An agent can tell this is the feedback-reporting tool without opening the schema.

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 enumerates when to invoke (unanswered question, failed search, wrong/stale/typo page, broken example) and instructs 'use it yourself, without being asked', removing ambiguity about proactive calls. It also states a precondition ('try at least two rewordings... read the likeliest sections in full') and a routing rule for the hard-to-find-vs-missing distinction, which is genuine when/when-not guidance.

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