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

Goes beyond annotations by disclosing that each request is stored and counted (implying append-only, no dedupe — consistent with idempotentHint=false) and by imposing a privacy constraint ('no personal data'). It does not say what comes back or whether duplicates create multiple counts; with no output schema that is a minor remaining gap.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with what it does, then eligibility, then the optional parameter caveat. No filler and nothing important is buried.

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?

Covers purpose, eligibility, id source, persistence behavior, and the privacy rule on the only free-text field. Missing only the outcome/return signal (no output schema exists) and any note on duplicate submissions.

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 100%, so baseline is 3; the description earns extra by adding a constraint not in the schema — notiz must contain no personal data — and by naming the source of the `feature` enum ids. It repeats the 280-char limit already present in the schema, which is wasted but harmless.

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+resource: it records the user's interest in a planned (not yet built) Overfit feature. It also points at the authoritative source of valid values (get_overfit_catalog under `planned`), which distinguishes it from catalog/read 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?

Explicit scoping: 'Intended only for requests where the user says they want one of these features', which functions as a when-not rule for exploratory or hypothetical mentions. It does not name an alternative for the exploratory case (e.g. read the catalog first), so not a full 5.

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