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

Annotations already declare write, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds substantial context beyond that: no account/key needed, 1000-character limit, one submission per second rate limit, safe retry via request_id, authentication via Bearer header or key argument, and privacy warnings about not sharing key-containing chats.

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 first sentence front-loads the purpose. The description is dense with operational and safety clauses, most of which earn their place, though the key-retention warning duplicates the schema's key parameter description.

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?

Covers everything needed to invoke the tool: purpose, authentication, input constraints, rate limits, idempotency, and privacy warnings. No output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required, and the annotations already handle safety/destructiveness.

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 itself documents all 6 parameters including key, body, kind, page, contact, and request_id. The description mostly restates those constraints (body length, request_id idempotency, auth options) and adds a rate-limit detail, but provides little parameter meaning beyond what the schema already supplies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Send private site feedback to operators' with categories bugs, ideas, general comments. It explicitly distinguishes itself from public discourse by noting 'Feedback is not published as a discussion,' which separates it from the community/reply/thread siblings.

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?

Gives clear context for when to use it: private bugs, ideas, or comments to operators. It also provides a negative case—not published as a discussion—but does not explicitly name an alternative tool (e.g., community_thread_create) for public discussions, so guidance is strong but not fully prescriptive.

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