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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the write/non-idempotent profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the request is reviewed by Overfit and feeds a prioritization process, and the notiz field must contain no personal data — info annotations cannot convey. 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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by examples, the catalog reference, and the notiz constraint. The example list is somewhat long but each item concretely illustrates what counts as 'planned', so it largely earns its place.

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 simple one-required-parameter write tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, where to get valid ids, the effect of the call, and the privacy constraint on notiz. Little that an agent needs to call it correctly 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so schema already documents name/notiz/feature and their length limits. The description still adds meaning beyond the schema: `feature` must be an id drawn from overfit_catalog `planned`, and notiz must avoid personal data — a semantic constraint the schema does not state.

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 gives a precise verb+resource: it records user interest in a feature that is PLANNED but not yet built, and enumerates concrete examples (sign-in from chat, credit top-up, API keys...). This scope clearly separates it from sibling data-retrieval tools, though it does not explicitly name a contrasting sibling such as overfit_contact_request.

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?

Usage is implied by the scope ('PLANNED but not built yet') and by the pointer to overfit_catalog under `planned` for valid values, which tells the agent where to source the feature id. However there is no explicit 'use this when / do not use this for X, use Y instead' statement, and the alternative for requests about existing features is left to inference.

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