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

Even though annotations carry no safety profile, the description discloses meaningful behavior: a real human reads each note, there is a daily rate limit, and only user-intended verbatim content may be sent. This goes well beyond the structured annotations and prepares the agent for side effects and constraints.

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?

All four sentences earn their place: core purpose, invocation guardrails, verbatim-content rule, and rate limit. The critical constraints are front-loaded in the second sentence, and there is no redundant filler.

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 simple two-parameter feedback tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, when to call it, what content to pass, who receives it, and the daily limit. An agent has everything needed to select and invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already described. The description adds semantic value by requiring the message to be passed 'in the user's own words' and by limiting calls to user-intended content, which instructs the agent on how to fill the message parameter correctly.

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 resource: 'Relay a short feedback note from the user to MarkIt's founder.' This clearly differentiates send_feedback from the reminder/list/search/save siblings, so an agent can identify its unique purpose immediately.

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 explicit trigger conditions ('user explicitly asks to send feedback, report a problem, or message the founder') and explicit prohibitions ('never on your own initiative, and never with content the user did not intend to send'). This is model usage guidance with no ambiguity.

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