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

Annotations only show readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint all false, which tells the agent little beyond 'not read-only, not idempotent, not destructive'. The description compensates by stating concrete side effects: it writes to feedbackReports, triggers the same email notification, and returns the new feedback report ID. This makes the write behavior and outcome transparent beyond what annotations convey.

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?

Three sentences with no filler: the first states the action and destination, the second adds behavioral fidelity, and the third gives category semantics and return value. The most important information is front-loaded and every sentence 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly includes the return value (new feedback report ID). It also states side effects and category options, covering the key operational details an agent needs. The optional workspaceId nuance is already documented in the input schema, 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains each parameter. The description adds a category-value mapping for bug/feature/question/other, which is helpful but largely redundant with the schema enum descriptions. It adds no information about route, message, or workspaceId beyond what the schema already provides, so 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 opening sentence names a specific action ('submit'), a clear object ('feedback report or bug report'), and a destination ('CampaignStack team'). The rest of the description clarifies expected behavior and return value, so an agent can tell what the tool accomplishes even among a large sibling list.

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 gives explicit category selection rules for bug/feature/question/other, telling the agent exactly which value to choose for each scenario. It also notes the tool mirrors the in-app widget and writes to the same table/email flow, giving context for how it should be used. It doesn't exclude alternatives, but no sibling is a plausible substitute, so the guidance is sufficient.

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