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

With only false hints in annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that it returns a request ID for tracking and implies the request is storable by referencing get_support_requests. However, it does not mention authentication requirements (though apiKey is in schema), idempotency nuances, or any side effects besides creating the request, so it adds limited 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?

The description is two sentences (or three if counting 'Next:' as separate) with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and purpose, then adds return value and follow-up guidance, earning 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?

Given 10 parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description does not need to explain each parameter. It provides the return value (request ID) and next-step tools, which is sufficient for a submission tool. It lacks explicit handling of edge cases like duplicate submissions or auth prerequisites, but these are not critical for the core use case.

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. The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., type, message, subject). The only extra info, 'Returns a request ID,' is output, not parameter-related.

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 the tool's verb and resource ('Submit a support request, complaint, or recommendation') and lists specific use cases. It differentiates from siblings by mentioning follow-up tools (get_support_requests, reply_to_support_request), making its scope distinct.

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 'Use this to report issues, request help, file complaints, or suggest improvements,' giving clear when-to-use guidance. It also points to next-step tools but does not explicitly distinguish from the related 'open_task_dispute' sibling or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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