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

The description adds that the report involves a rating and journey step, but no behavioral details such as persistence or data handling. Annotations already indicate it's not read-only and not destructive, so no contradiction exists.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and core inputs. No wasted words.

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 feedback tool, the description is adequate: it covers the key purpose and required inputs. It does not explain optional params or side effects, but these are either self-explanatory or covered by annotations.

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?

The description explicitly mentions the two required parameters (rating and journeyStep), but the optional parameters (context, provider, whatFailed, whatWorked) are not explained. With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates but leaves gaps.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: report success or friction with a rating and journey step. It distinguishes from sibling tools like report_bug (bugs) and rate_purchase (specifically rating a purchase).

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 implies use when a user wants to provide feedback about their Lobex experience, covering both positive and negative aspects. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, but the scope is clear and no exclusions are needed.

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