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

Adds context beyond annotations: ratings are aggregated on a public dashboard, comment truncation behavior is described, and the tool's write action is clear (no annotation contradiction).

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?

Single efficient paragraph that front-loads purpose, then moves through scoring guidelines, dashboard note, usage rule, and example—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?

For a simple 3-param tool with output schema, the description covers what the tool does, when to use it, how to use parameters, behavioral quirks (truncation), and an example—no gaps.

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%; the description enriches each parameter with usage guidance (e.g., comment is 'the most valuable part', score scale explained, tool_name example) and provides a full invocation example.

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 uses a specific verb ("Give") and resource ("usage feedback on an IA-QA MCP tool"), and clearly distinguishes this rating tool from the many sibling utilities by its unique role of collecting feedback.

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?

Explicit criteria for when to rate low (1-2) vs high (4-5), and a direct instruction to skip routine successes ('we want signal, not praise'), plus a concrete example showing how to call the tool.

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