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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that no human approval is needed, that capability-shaped strings are redacted, and implies non-destructive behavior. It could be more explicit about what happens after sending (e.g., no guaranteed response), but for a simple feedback tool, this is sufficient. No contradictions.

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 front-loaded with 'Optional and free-form' and every sentence adds unique value. It is structured logically: optionality, purpose, content guidelines, and user feedback handling. No waste—each sentence 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 tool with 2 parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, when to use, what to include/exclude, and handling of user feedback. It is complete enough for an agent to use correctly without ambiguity.

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 parameters are described in the schema. The tool description adds value by elaborating on the message content (what to include, what to avoid) and the context for category. This goes beyond the schema's brief descriptions, aiding the agent in crafting appropriate parameter values.

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 the tool is for sending feedback to the TmpState team. It expands on the purpose by explaining the type of feedback useful (missing features, friction, etc.) and that it's optional and free-form. The verb 'send_feedback' directly matches the action, and no sibling tool handles feedback, so differentiation is clear.

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 says when to use ('After real use of a database, one short message...') and provides guidance on what not to include (database URLs, capabilities, Pro tokens). It also explains how to relay user feedback. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool, but given the simple nature, this is adequate.

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