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

Annotations already declare the operation profile (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), and the description adds only the outcome ('so the docs team can fix it'). It says nothing about authentication requirements, whether submissions are anonymous/tracked, or expected turnaround, so added context is limited.

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 tight sentences: the domain-scoped purpose, the use case, and the exclusions. It is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 two-parameter submission tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, triggers, and exclusions, which is all an agent needs to call it correctly. No return-value explanation is required since none exists.

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 both parameters (path, feedback) are already well documented in the schema, including the path format convention. The description names no parameter-level details (e.g., accepted path formats) beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (report) and resource (a problem with the documentation site) with clear scope, noting it goes to the docs team. It also distinguishes itself from similar sibling actions by excluding product support and tool/assistant feedback, so an agent can tell it apart from mzizi_report_issue without opening either 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?

Explicitly lists when to use it (page is incorrect, outdated, confusing, incomplete, or has a broken example) and when not to use it (product support requests, feedback about this tool or assistant). Both the trigger and the exclusions are stated, leaving nothing to inference.

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