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

Annotations mark this as a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world write, which is already informative. The description adds that no source code is sent, only a coarse decision and build signal, and that it helps learn which packages succeed. However, it doesn't discuss privacy, storage, or side effects beyond the coarse data, and the non-idempotent annotation suggests repeated calls may duplicate data, which is not mentioned.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the trigger and scope, then the data-minimization and value proposition. No filler, every clause earns its place.

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 four-parameter opt-in feedback tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it covers purpose, timing, data limits, and optionality. It could mention whether a response is returned or what happens after submission, but the core needs are addressed.

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 all four parameters are fully documented in the schema with descriptions, patterns, and an enum for buildSignal. The description does not add any parameter-level details beyond the schema, so 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?

The description states a specific verb (report) and a specific resource (feedback on a package outcome), and it precisely scopes what is being reported: 'whether you went with it and whether it built.' It also names the sibling tools whose evidence it follows up on (verify, evaluate, compare, compat), distinguishing this tool from those.

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 explicitly says 'Opt-in feedback after you act on lurq's evidence about a package (verify, evaluate, compare, compat)' and 'safe to skip.' This tells the agent exactly when to use it (after acting on evidence from those siblings) and when it is not required. The condition is unambiguous.

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