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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose meaningful traits: 'It goes straight to our roadmap/backlog' and 'Free — no token needed,' which signal it is a low-cost, asynchronous request path. However, it does not mention what happens after submission, whether there is any confirmation, or relevant limitations, leaving some ambiguity for an agent deciding whether this is appropriate.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main action, followed by when-to-use scenarios and a closing behavioral note. Every sentence earns its place, and the 'Free — no token needed' detail is a useful, compact addition.

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 feedback/request tool with no output schema, the description covers the main operational context: how to use it, when to use it, and what happens to the request. The schema fills in parameter details, and the description's 'goes straight to our roadmap/backlog' clarifies the lack of immediate resolution. It could be slightly more explicit about expected outcomes or whether the user will receive a response, but it is largely complete.

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?

The schema descriptions cover 100% of the parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter-level detail beyond the schema, such as emphasizing that messages should be specific ('be specific' appears in the schema, not the main description). It does not materially improve understanding of kind, context, or verdict_id beyond what the schema already provides.

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 purpose: 'ask us to add a failure pattern to the library, or report a problem we couldn't diagnose well.' It uses a specific verb and resource, making the core function evident. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like submit_feedback, though it does mention diagnose_trace as a related entry point.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this when diagnose_trace didn't have a good answer, when you keep hitting a failure we don't classify, or when you want a specific kind of problem supported.' It provides clear context but does not state when not to use it or mention alternative feedback/request tools, so it falls short of full alternative routing.

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