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

Annotations only supply destructiveHint=false, so the description carries the real burden and does: it discloses the storage/visibility model (private, emailed to founders, never published), the side-effect profile (no ticket, no account changes), and the append semantics ('Each call is a separate submission'). It even states the return shape.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then constraints, then behavioral caveats. Every clause carries information an agent needs; nothing is restated from the name or title.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description names the return fields ({ feedbackId, received }), covers the at-least-one-input rule, and resolves the main ambiguity (feedback vs. support). Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 0%, and the description compensates fully: it gives the type and range for score (integer 0-10, optional), the length bounds for text (1-2000 chars, optional), and — critically — the cross-field constraint that at least one is required, which the schema itself does not enforce.

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 feedback to the Coldrig founders') plus the channel it lives in (private, emailed, never published). It also distinguishes itself from the nearby sibling contact_operator, so an agent can pick between them without opening either schema.

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 routes the alternative case: 'use contact_operator for a problem that needs an answer,' which names both the alternative and the condition that selects it. It also clarifies that this opens no support ticket and changes nothing on the account.

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