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

The description discloses key behavioral traits beyond the annotations, such as the default reply behavior per category, the distinction between bug and other categories for contact_ok, and the rule about not including unsolicited calendar content. Since annotations only provide basic booleans (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: false), the description adds substantial value.

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?

The description is well-structured with a clear first paragraph explaining purpose, a second paragraph with when-to-use rules, and a third paragraph explaining contact_ok behavior. Every sentence provides necessary guidance without redundancy. It is concise yet comprehensive.

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 the tool's complexity (3 parameters, 1 enum, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema), the description adequately covers usage rules and behavioral details. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit mention of what the tool returns (output schema exists but no description of response). However, since an output schema is present, this is acceptable.

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?

Although schema description coverage is 100%, the description adds context beyond the schema by explaining the contact_ok default behavior based on category (bug vs others) and the nuance of when to set it to true or false. The description could slightly improve by explicitly linking category values to the feedback scenarios mentioned in the first paragraph, but overall adds meaningful guidance.

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 clearly states that this tool sends feedback from the user to the Kalender Sync team, and provides concrete examples of when it should be used (e.g., missing capabilities, broken features). This distinguishes it well from sibling tools like create_event or update_event which handle calendar operations.

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 description explicitly states when to call the tool ('only when the user explicitly asked to send feedback'), when not to call it ('never send feedback on your own initiative'), and provides clear rules about including calendar content. It also gives nuanced guidance on the contact_ok parameter based on feedback category.

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