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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false / openWorldHint=true / idempotentHint=false, leaving the write semantics ambiguous. The description goes well beyond them: 'Free and keyless' (cost and auth), and the crucial clarification that feedback 'does not change work, proof, payment, safety, authority, standards or code' — i.e. the write is observational, not mutating. The secrets warning ('Do not include passwords, private keys, seed phrases or API keys') is also operationally important context.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the action and the inputs, then the trigger condition, then the two non-obvious traits (cost/keyless, non-mutation), then the safety warning. Every sentence carries distinct, load-bearing information with no repetition.

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 9-parameter write tool with full schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations, the description covers purpose, trigger, cost, non-mutation and security adequately. The only gap is that it never points to related tools (e.g. track_followup) for what happens after a report is filed, which is a minor omission given the output schema exists.

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 every one of the 9 parameters (including the targetKind enum) is already documented. The description loosely restates three required fields in prose ('what you tried to do ... what happened ... what you expected'), but adds no format, constraint, or syntax detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Record') and a specific resource (friction/missing-capability feedback about Vealth), and the title adds the framing 'Report friction or a missing capability'. No sibling does the same thing, so an agent can route here without opening any 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?

The description gives an explicit trigger condition: 'Use this when a tool, endpoint, page or capability is missing, confusing, blocked or appears broken.' That is clear when-to-use guidance. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative or an explicit when-not (e.g. 'for security issues use X'), so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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