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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds context that the tool does not perform general summarization, search, or scraping, which clarifies its behavioral boundaries. There is no contradiction with annotations since the tool likely generates output without side effects.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary purpose and then exclusions. Every sentence serves a purpose; there is no fluff.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (two parameters, nested output via output schema), the description covers the transformation and constraints. The output schema likely documents return values, so the description need not elaborate. It is reasonable for an agent to invoke 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?

The schema covers 50% of parameters with descriptions (only 'feedback' is described). The tool description does not add any new information about parameters beyond what the schema provides. The 'productName' parameter lacks both schema and description explanation, leaving ambiguity.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: converting X feedback into a structured Signal-to-Fix package and coding-agent prompt. It explicitly lists what it does not do (summarization, web search, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools like hyperxosist_filter_signals and hyperxosist_search_plan.

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 starts with 'Use to...' indicating when to use the tool. It also states what it does not do, preventing misuse. However, it does not explicitly compare to siblings or provide exclusions beyond the listed negatives.

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