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

Adds meaningful behavior beyond annotations: submission is free, does not require an account, and is read by a human. This helps set expectations about cost, access, and processing style. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed only by high-value operational details. Every sentence contributes selection or invocation guidance.

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 an output schema exists, return value explanation is unnecessary. The description covers purpose, categories, severity, account requirement, and bug-submission specifics. The main missing piece is idempotency_key semantics, which matters for a submit-style 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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden. It enumerates valid category and severity values and explains how to use context and related_tool for bug reports. Title and body are obvious; idempotency_key is not explained, which is a minor gap.

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 action ('File') and resource ('a grievance or product recommendation'), with explicit categories. Clearly distinguishes this feedback tool from the account management and guide siblings.

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 usage context: free, works without an account, and gives targeted instructions for bug reports (include related_tool and paste error text in context). It does not name alternatives, but no obvious sibling fills the same role.

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