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 usefully discloses that the tool returns both existing reports and their responses, and scopes the content to this server. However, it does not disclose that the show parameter defaults to 'open', meaning closed/resolved feedback is hidden by default — an agent checking before feedback_add could miss already-resolved threads. This is a meaningful behavioral gap.

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 short sentences with zero waste: the first states the core function, the second gives the decisive usage routing. The key scoping fact ('about this server') is front-loaded, and the sibling pointer ends the description economically. Every word 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Six optional parameters with sensible defaults, a clear domain scope, and explicit routing to feedback_add make this nearly complete for a lookup tool. The only real omission is the default open-only filtering behavior, which an agent should know before relying on this as a pre-add check.

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 description mentions no parameters, so it adds nothing beyond the input schema. Schema coverage is 67% (q, kind, tool, status are described), and the two undocumented parameters are largely self-explanatory: show has an enum (open/closed/all) and limit has min/max/default. The schema carries the load, so a baseline 3 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 states the resource ('what has already been reported about this server') and the response side ('and the responses to it'), and explicitly names the related sibling feedback_add, making the tool distinguishable. However, the verb is implicit in the tool name rather than the description, and the phrasing "что уже сообщено" is passive/indirect, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

"Смотрите перед feedback_add" is an explicit directive telling the agent when to consult this tool: before adding new feedback. This directly routes to the one relevant sibling and is clear enough for the domain. It does not enumerate exclusions or discuss other sibling tools, but given feedback_list's narrow scope, that is a minor omission.

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