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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that a human reads every word, that the 'door' may change as a result, and that nothing is promised back except a reading. This is valuable transparency, even though the exact nature of the 'door' change is not spelled out.

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 three concise sentences with the main instruction front-loaded and no repeated information. The 'door itself changes' metaphor is decorative but conveys an expected effect and is not filler. It is well-sized for a simple tool.

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 two-parameter feedback tool with no output schema, the description covers what to write, where to route it, human involvement, and the lack of a guaranteed reply. However, it leaves the meaning of 'the door itself changes' undefined and offers no guidance on how to decide between this tool and its siblings. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for the parameter meaning. It explicitly clarifies `where` as naming the tool or route, and `words` is implied to contain the user's confusion, wants, and offers. However, it never directly names the parameters or notes that `words` is required, so the compensation is only partial.

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 communicates that the caller should say what confused them, what they wanted, and what they would pay for, and that a person will read it. However, the actual operation is expressed metaphorically ('the door itself changes') and the concrete effect or resource involved is never defined. It does not differentiate from sibling tools such as bid or claim.

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 implies when to use this tool: when the user is confused, has an unmet want, or has a price in mind, and `where` can name the relevant tool or route. It never explicitly says when not to use it or how it differs from the sibling tools, so the usage guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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