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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states 'improves discovery ranking (free)' and does not disclose side effects, permissions, or whether it is destructive/read-only. The 'free' note is helpful but insufficient.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence, but it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity. It is not front-loaded with critical information like required parameters.

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?

Given 6 parameters (4 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain return values, parameter semantics, or behavioral implications of submitting feedback.

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?

With 6 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description adds no meaning beyond the schema. It does not explain the purpose of any parameter, such as 'outcome' enum values or the 'cost_usd' and 'latency_ms' 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?

The description clearly states it is for CRP post-execution feedback and that it improves discovery ranking. It is specific about the verb ('feedback') and resource ('CRP'). However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'crp_resolve', which may be related but is not mentioned.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description implies it is for after CRP execution but does not specify when to choose it over 'crp_resolve' or other feedback mechanisms. No exclusions or contextual advice.

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