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

Despite annotations covering the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond them: human review ('A person reads it'), no auth requirement ('no account'), and a rate limit ('a few messages an hour'). The rate limit is the standout disclosure an agent could not infer from structured fields.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the most salient fact ('Free'), and every clause carries information: accepted kinds, human handling, cost/account terms, and throttling. No filler.

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 submission tool with no output schema, the description covers the important operational facts (free, human-reviewed, no account, rate-limited). The only minor gap is that it does not clarify what happens after submission or whether a response is returned.

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 75%, so the schema already documents most parameters (kind, route, contact, message). The description echoes the intent of the required 'message' content ('what worked, what failed or what you miss') but adds no new field-level syntax, format, or constraint meaning.

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 states a clear action and recipient: 'Tell the people who run this service what worked, what failed or what you miss,' and enumerates the accepted feedback kinds. This sharply distinguishes it from the sibling VPS lifecycle tools, though the verb ('tell') is slightly softer than a crisp 'send feedback' framing.

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?

Context is implied by the enumeration of submission kinds (bug, idea, thanks), which hints at when it is appropriate, and it clarifies prerequisites ('No payment, no account'). However, it never explicitly states when to use this versus other tools or any exclusions, so guidance remains inferential.

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