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

Annotations already cover the operation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false). The description adds useful context by stating the feedback is routed to the docs team to fix the issue, while the exclusion of unrelated feedback clarifies the tool's boundaries.

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 focused sentences: the first front-loads the action and purpose, the second packs the usage criteria and exclusions. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 two-parameter tool with full schema coverage, descriptive annotations, and no output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool does, when to use it, and when not to use it, so correct selection and invocation are fully supported.

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%, and both `path` and `feedback` parameters are already well documented with examples. The description does not need to add parameter-level detail and adds only indirect context by emphasizing the feedback is about documentation content.

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 states a specific verb ('Report a problem') and resource ('this documentation site'), with the clear goal of enabling the docs team to fix issues. It clearly differentiates this tool from the query/search siblings by focusing on feedback submission rather than information retrieval.

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 use cases are listed: when a page is incorrect, outdated, confusing, incomplete, or has a broken example. It also explicitly excludes product support requests and feedback about the tool or assistant, giving clear when-not-to-use guidance.

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