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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description earns credit by disclosing the propagation delay for recently filed reports and the presence of a work-order reference in the response — behavioral traits not present in the structured fields.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the resource and keyed by feedbackId, then the timing nuance. Every clause serves a purpose, though the mention of 'by its feedbackId' is slightly redundant with the schema.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must signal the return content — and it does by naming the three possible states plus the work-order reference and the lag behavior. For a one-param read tool this is nearly complete, with only the exact response shape left unstated.

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 the single parameter is fully documented as 'the feedbackId returned by send_feedback'; the description restates the same provenance, adding no new syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema fully carries the parameter.

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 the specific resource (the state of a report filed via send_feedback), the selector (feedbackId), and enumerates the possible states. It explicitly ties itself to the sibling send_feedback, so an agent can distinguish the read-back tool from the write tool 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?

It clearly implies the usage context — check the status of a report you already filed via send_feedback — and adds a useful timing caveat ('a report filed in the last few hours may still read filed'). It does not name explicit when-not conditions or alternatives, but for a single-purpose lookup that is a minor gap.

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