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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavioral traits: submissions are anonymous and require no auth or wallet. This is exactly the kind of privacy/authorization context that matters for an agent deciding whether to call it. It omits what happens to the data afterward (persistence, rate limits), 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the trigger condition followed by the anonymity caveat. No filler or repetition. It is tight and readable, though very brief for a four-parameter tool.

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?

There is no output schema, no annotations, and 0% parameter description coverage, so the description bears full responsibility. It covers purpose and privacy well but does not compensate for the undocumented message, agent_name, and wallet semantics. Adequate for a simple feedback form but leaves gaps.

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% across four parameters, so the description must compensate. It only loosely maps 'tell us why' to the reason enum and implies the wallet is unneeded, but leaves message and agent_name unexplained and does not clarify the enum choices. The bulk of parameter meaning is left undocumented.

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 purpose: collecting reasons from users who browsed AgentMarket without posting or taking a task. This resource (exit/feedback) is clearly distinct from every sibling tool like post_task or accept_task. It never uses the word 'feedback' explicitly, but the action and subject are unambiguous.

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 a clear trigger condition: use this if you looked at AgentMarket but decided not to post or take a task. That narrows the 'when' well and implicitly excludes users who did participate. It lacks explicit 'when-not' guidance (e.g., do not use if you engaged), but the context is specific enough to act on.

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