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

Goes well beyond the annotations (which only flag non-readonly, open-world, non-idempotent, non-destructive) by disclosing size limits (10KB body, 4KB snippet), the human-review queueing behavior, the default routing inbox, the privacy property of `contact` (opaque to server), and what `auto_dispatch=true` authorizes. Rich, non-redundant behavioral 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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and default routing before the routing variants and limits, with every sentence carrying information. The trailing parenthetical about a 'separate sprint' is mildly extraneous, keeping it just short of a 5.

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 an 8-parameter submission tool with no output schema but full schema coverage, the description covers routing, categories, size constraints, contact privacy, and the dispatch flag — everything an agent needs to call it correctly.

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, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks: the default inbox vs. package routing semantics with a concrete example, the enum-like category list, and the default-and-effect of `auto_dispatch`. This meaningfully augments the parameter docs.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('Anonymous bug report / feature request / docs gap') and its disposition ('queued for human review'), plus the acceptable categories. An agent can tell exactly what this tool submits 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?

It explicitly documents the two routing modes: default `public-feedback` inbox vs. `package="vendor/name"` routing to the `pkg:vendor/name` inbox, and when to set `auto_dispatch=true`. It lacks an explicit 'do not use for X' exclusion, but the routing conditions are clear enough to select correct invocation.

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