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

Annotations cover safety (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds a genuinely non-annotated behavioral constraint: the message must contain the person's own words, not the conversation, and must exclude PII. It does not say whether the send is confirmed or how failure is surfaced, so it stops 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?

Three front-loaded sentences with no filler: what it does, when to use it, and how to populate the message. Each clause carries new information (categories, trigger, content rules).

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?

With no output schema and moderate annotations, the description covers purpose, trigger, and content rules well. It omits any indication of what happens after sending (confirmation, delivery, retry on a non-idempotent call), which would complete the picture for an agent reporting outcome to the user.

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 baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by clarifying what belongs in the required 'message' field — the person's own words about the problem rather than the surrounding conversation — a distinction the schema does not make.

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 ('Sends feedback to the people who run ElectricityFinder') and enumerates the concrete kinds of feedback it carries. The domain is unmistakably distinct from the query-oriented siblings, so an agent can select it 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?

Explicit trigger given: 'It is for when the person asks to send feedback.' That is clear usage context, but there is no when-not guidance and no named alternative for cases where the user wants plan comparison or usage info.

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