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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description adds 'fire-and-forget, never blocks' and 'callable at any point', which are useful behavioral traits. These enrich the agent's understanding of side effects and execution semantics without contradicting any annotation.

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 a single, well-organized paragraph that front-loads the purpose. Each sentence contributes unique information: what, when, categories, rating, plan_id, use cases, and reporting tips. It is dense but not bloated, with every sentence earning 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?

Given the presence of an output schema and annotations, the description does not need to explain return values or safety profiles. It thoroughly covers when to use, how to categorize, rating semantics, plan_id linkage, and practical examples of useful feedback. It omits error handling or prerequisites, but these are less critical for a feedback submission tool.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds significant value by expanding the category values (mcp, plan, code, docs, other) with practical sub-contexts (e.g., mcp includes SSE and plan_status). It also clarifies the rating scale and advises including plan_id and specific details, which goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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 'Submit feedback about PlanExe' — a specific verb and resource, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on plan management, models, and examples. It also mentions the range of feedback (issues, impressions, suggestions) and states it is callable at any point, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('Callable at any point in the workflow') and enumerates concrete scenarios (SSE streams closing, stale plan_status, queue delays, reviewing plan output quality). While it does not provide explicit exclusions or alternatives, the unique nature of a feedback tool means alternatives are unnecessary; the context is clear enough.

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