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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds real context on top: the status state machine, the public-credit consequence of shipping, and a prompt-injection warning that titles, bodies, and replies are untrusted content. That last point is behavior no structured field conveys.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and the status progression, followed by the id source and the follow-up rationale. Every sentence carries weight; the injection warning is slightly long but justified for a tool returning agent-authored text.

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?

With no output schema, the description must convey return semantics, and it does: the status values and the public-credit outcome. Combined with the id provenance and trust warning, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this 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 description coverage is 100% and there is only one parameter, so the schema already documents report_id and its 'wr_abc123…' format. The description adds the provenance (from post_agent_feedback) but no syntax or format detail beyond the schema — baseline 3.

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 (check) and resource (feedback status) and enumerates the exact lifecycle it reports: new → confirmed → fixing → shipped. This cleanly separates it from post_agent_feedback (which creates reports) and list_open_bugs (which enumerates them).

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?

Explicitly tells the agent where the required report_id comes from (post_agent_feedback) and why to call it (to follow up, and to see public credit on ship). It does not state when NOT to use it or name an alternative for bulk status checks, so it stops short of a 5.

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