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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that the request goes to a real inbox, is free and requires no account, and must be filed even if the agent lacks all details ('Do not demand any of it: file what you have'). It also mandates verbatim transmission of user request/email, agent-written context, and never claiming success unless status came back 'filed'. These are behavioral rules the annotations cannot capture.

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 longer than average but every section earns its place: purpose, usage triggers, pre-call info gathering, verbatim rules, post-call reporting, and examples. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the examples clarify the intended scenarios without padding. This is appropriate density for a tool with nuanced behavioral requirements.

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 tool with 5 parameters, 0 required, and an output schema, the description is essentially complete. It tells the agent when to call it, how to gather and transmit information, what to do with missing fields, and how to report the outcome to the user. It even references the output status ('status came back filed'), which is sufficient because the output schema provides the formal structure.

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 baseline is 3. The description reinforces the verbatim requirement for REQUEST and EMAIL and states 'write context yourself,' but the schema already says essentially the same thing ('VERBATIM — do not summarise', 'This one is yours to write'). The examples illustrate possible values, but they do not add semantically new parameter meaning beyond a high-coverage 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 opens with a specific verb and object: 'Sends a feature request, a data request or a correction straight to the person who builds this server.' It then enumerates the exact fall-short scenarios (question it cannot answer, dataset it does not hold, wrong-looking answer), which clearly separates it from the data-retrieval sibling tools. The name and title are reinforced rather than merely restated.

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 when-to-use conditions: 'Use it whenever this server falls short of what the user actually wanted,' with concrete examples and the instruction that 'Reaching a wall is not the end of the turn; offer to file it.' It does not name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it, but the fall-short framing implies the sibling data tools are preferred when they can satisfy the request.

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