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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool returns both user comments and human replies, and that the default view shows 'живые' (open) items. It does not explicitly say 'read-only', but the wording clearly implies a non-mutating listing operation.

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?

Two compact sentences deliver purpose, usage guidance, and default behavior with no filler. The capitalized directive 'ЗОВИТЕ ПЕРЕД feedback_add' effectively highlights the most important operational instruction.

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 list tool with six optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers the purpose, when to call it relative to feedback_add, and the default filtering behavior. Parameter details are covered by the schema, and the output schema removes the need to describe return values, so nothing essential is missing.

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?

The schema already documents q, kind, tool, and status with descriptions, show with an enum, and limit with constraints, giving 67% schema description coverage. The description only adds the natural-language default 'живые' (open), which mirrors the schema default for show; it does not meaningfully explain parameters beyond the schema.

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 the tool's resource (feedback about this server) and the kind of information it returns (what was reported and its current state). It also distinguishes itself from feedback_add, but it lacks a crisp imperative verb like 'list', relying instead on a noun phrase and the later directive 'ЗОВИТЕ ПЕРЕД feedback_add'.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent when to call this tool: before feedback_add, when unsure whether something has already been reported. It names the sibling alternative and explains what the agent will gain (seeing other people's remarks and human responses), leaving no doubt about the intended workflow.

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