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

Annotations only declare it is a non-idempotent, non-destructive write; the description adds the real behavioral burdens: mandatory user consent before sending, a hard prohibition on personal details, a conditional rule for contactEmail, and the return shape { received, id }.

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-loads purpose, then consent, then privacy, then return value — a good order with no filler. The final 'REQUIRED arguments' sentence is redundant with the schema's required array and is the one line that does not earn 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 7-parameter write tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, everything an agent needs is present: consent gate, privacy constraint, conditional email, and the response shape.

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% and each parameter is already documented, so the baseline is 3. The description's restatement of the required arguments (kind, message) is redundant, and its contactEmail rule largely duplicates the schema's own description, adding only the privacy framing.

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 object: report wrong/missing Levels.fyi data or a missing feature to the Levels.fyi team. It is clearly distinguishable from the many read-oriented siblings and from add-salary-submission, which is a data contribution rather than a feedback report.

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 precondition: only call after telling the user what will be sent and receiving agreement. It does not, however, route between alternatives (e.g., telling the agent to use add-salary-submission instead when the user wants to supply missing salary data).

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