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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, but the description leaves the destructive/non-idempotent character unexplained (no rate limits, no duplicate-request behavior). It does add two facts beyond the structured data: the call is free with any key, and a human team reads every submission, which is genuinely useful 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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and its precondition, then the kind distinctions and the cost/human-review note. Slight overlap with the enum descriptions in the schema, but no filler.

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 non-idempotent write tool with a full schema and an output schema, the description covers what it does, when to invoke it, how the two kinds differ, and the cost/expectation of submission. What is missing is anything about the consequence of calling it (destructiveHint) or how to follow up, but the core invocation needs are covered.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by enumerating what counts as "data" (game, format, stack depth, spot, solve) versus "feature" (tool, filter, export, endpoint), which is meaningfully more than the enum's one-line schema description. The remaining parameters (details, summary, question) are left to the schema, which already documents them well.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("File a feature request or data request") and immediately disambiguates the two variants, defining what each kind means. An agent can distinguish this from list_my_requests and every read-oriented sibling without opening the 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 gives an explicit precondition: file only after telling the user their question isn't covered and they agree. That is strong guidance on when to use it, but it never states when not to use it or which sibling to reach for first (e.g. list_my_requests to check status).

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