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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a write/submit action ('report') but does not disclose side effects, auth requirements, or what happens after submission (e.g., creates a record). It does provide guidance on what to include, which is helpful, but the actual behavior of the tool (e.g., that it records feedback) is only implied, not stated explicitly.

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 a single, focused sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and immediately clarifies scope (server problems, not calculations). It provides actionable guidance without any filler. Every phrase 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?

The tool has 5 parameters but only 1 required (title), and the schema covers 80% of them. The description explains the overall purpose and what to include, which is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly. The output schema exists (not shown here), so return values are covered elsewhere. The description does not explain the 'kind' enum or default values, but those are in the schema. Overall, complete enough for a feedback submission tool.

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 80% (high), so baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by explaining how to fill parameters: 'tool, arguments, expected vs actual' maps directly to the 'tool', 'body', and 'meta' fields. It also clarifies the purpose of 'title' (a short summary) implicitly. This goes beyond the schema's field descriptions, so a 4 is appropriate.

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's purpose: reporting problems with the server itself, not calculations. It specifies the exact scenarios (tool misbehaving, missing parameter/field, unclear refusal) and provides a precise instruction on what to include. This distinguishes it from feedback_list (which lists feedback) and other calculation-related tools.

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 'not about calculations' (when-not) and gives clear context for when to use: when the tool behaves unexpectedly. However, it does not mention feedback_list as an alternative for viewing existing feedback, nor does it state when NOT to use this tool for other purposes. So it's clear context but lacks explicit alternative routing.

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