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

Annotations already indicate the tool is a non-idempotent write operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context: 'No account needed', 'intake does not guarantee acceptance or completion', and implicitly that it's an asynchronous feedback submission. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Two concise sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with the core purpose ('Bring a purchase decision or tell Agent Reputation what is missing'). Every sentence adds essential information.

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 feedback submission tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage guidelines, prerequisites, and limits. It does not explain the return value, but given the caveat 'intake does not guarantee acceptance or completion', the behavior is sufficiently clear. Minor gap: no mention of rate limits or confirmation, but not critical for this tool type.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds extra semantic guidance for the 'why_i_came' category (what to include), which is not in the schema. This exceeds the baseline of 3, as it provides practical usage context beyond bare parameter 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?

Description clearly states the tool's purpose: bringing a purchase decision or explaining missing evidence. Uses specific verbs ('bring', 'tell') and resource ('Agent Reputation'). Distinguishes from sibling tools by being the general feedback submission point.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use each category (e.g., 'For a purchase case use category why_i_came') and what to include ('candidate, mission, exposure and consequences of failure'). Also states what not to include ('never secrets or personal data') and that no account is needed. Effectively differentiates usage from siblings.

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