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

Annotations declare a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive write, and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: strict privacy rules on personal details and a content-scoping rule for the message. It does not describe submission outcome, rate limits, or what happens on repeated sends, so it falls short of a 5.

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 tightly packed sentences: purpose first, then usage constraint and privacy rule. No filler, and the most decision-relevant information (when to use) is front-loaded.

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 4-parameter write with no output schema, the description covers trigger, content scope, and privacy, which is what an agent needs. It omits any indication of what confirmation or result the caller should expect after sending, a minor gap.

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 schema already defines all four parameters, the enum values for kind, the ZIP pattern, and length limits. The description's kind examples and privacy note largely duplicate the schema descriptions ('kind' enum text and 'message' description), so it adds little beyond the structured fields.

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 and resource ('Send feedback to the people who run ElectricityFinder') and enumerates the content domains it covers (wrong price/plan, confusing answer, missing feature, error). It is unmistakably distinct from the siblings compare_texas_electricity_plans and how_to_get_my_usage.

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?

Explicitly states the trigger condition ('Use it only when the person asks to send feedback') and the exclusion ('send their words about the problem, not the conversation'), plus a hard privacy constraint. An agent knows exactly when to call this and what not to include.

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