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

Goes well beyond the annotations: discloses masking, human-review destination, that nothing is sent externally, and concrete rate limits (20/credential/Tallinn day, 5/rolling minute), plus the return shape (feedback_id, status=received). These are exactly the operational traits an agent needs and annotations cannot express.

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?

Front-loaded with the gating condition and core behavior, and nearly every sentence carries a constraint (privacy, omission policy, rate limits). It is dense but justified; the 'Use get_company' routing sentence is slightly tangential for a feedback tool, keeping it just short of a 5.

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 mutation-adjacent tool with rich privacy/rate constraints and an output schema already covering return values, the description supplies everything needed: trigger, scope, prohibited content, omission defaults, limits, and confirmation output. No material gap remains.

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 83%, so the schema already carries most parameter meaning (baseline 3). The description adds real value by specifying omission policy for the optional request_context and agent fields ('omit unless essential to reproduce') and by referencing their masking/size constraints, exceeding the structured fields alone.

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 and resource ('Stores one masked feedback record for human review') and clarifies the effect ('sends nothing externally'). This is unmistakably distinct from the read-only lookup siblings like get_company and find_companies.

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?

Gives an explicit gating condition ('Use only when the user explicitly asks to report missing or wrong data'), a boundary ('Do not look up natural persons'), and routes to an alternative ('Use get_company to retrieve company data'). Nothing about when to invoke 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.