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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, and the description earns its keep by explaining the mechanism behind idempotency ('a stable request_id makes retries safe') and adding a data-handling constraint ('Leave out secrets and raw data'). It does not say where the feedback goes or whether it is reviewed, so it is helpful but not exhaustive.

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 short clauses, each front-loaded and non-redundant: purpose, the sibling routing rule, the idempotency requirement, and the privacy warning. No sentence could be deleted without losing information.

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 write tool with no output schema and zero schema description coverage, the essentials (purpose, idempotency, privacy) are covered, but execution_ref is unexplained and the enum semantics of category are only implied. An agent could call it correctly enough, but not confidently for every parameter.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden and only partially does: it explains request_id's role in safe retries and hints at the category space via 'what helped or went wrong'. The execution_ref parameter and the specific category enum values are never mentioned, leaving a real gap for a 4-parameter 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 a concrete action ('Tell ComputeFirst what helped or went wrong') that maps cleanly to sending feedback, and it explicitly routes one adjacent case ('a missing tool fits request_tool') to the correct sibling. The verb is informal rather than a crisp 'submit feedback', so it is clear but not maximally precise.

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?

It gives an explicit routing rule: missing-capability reports belong to request_tool instead of feedback, which is the single most likely sibling confusion in a 15-tool set. It stops short of stating when the other categories (wrong_result, hard_to_use) should be used, so it is clear context without full coverage.

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