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

Annotations already cover the safe-read profile (readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent), so the bar is lower; the description nonetheless discloses ordering (newest first), visibility filtering (only assets you can view), and pagination behavior including the caveat that a page can hold fewer than `limit` items and next_offset signals remaining pages. It stops short of auth/rate-limit context, but the pagination disclosure is real added value.

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 purpose and scope before routing and pagination detail, and every sentence carries information. The single dense paragraph packed with parenthetical asides and the enumerated return fields is slightly heavy to scan, keeping it off 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating each returned item's fields (type, author, timestamp, link, container_id/container_title, asset_id as version id), along with pagination, scoping, and sibling routing. An agent can call this correctly and interpret the result without further documentation.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds semantics beyond the schema: team_id resolves a team named by an earlier result versus the app's currently selected team, folder_id scopes to a client/project subtree, offset consumes the previous next_offset, and since/until narrow the window. It also clarifies that asset_id is a version id, which the schema never states.

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+resource (get latest feedback) with explicit scope (whole team or one folder's subtree) and ordering (newest first), plus the content type (text and recording comments on assets you can view). This clearly distinguishes it from the asset-scoped feedback_list and the aggregate feedback_stats.

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?

Names three alternatives with the exact condition selecting each: feedback_list for one asset's feedback, wait_for_feedback to wait for new feedback, feedback_stats for counts and trends. It also states when to use folder_id (one client's/project's feedback) and the window params, 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.