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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningfully: it discloses cost/auth behavior ('Free, no key, and no Authorization header is forwarded'), a storage/privacy constraint ('Storage stays off until covered by the privacy statement'), and the proxy target endpoint. Content restrictions on the note are also stated. It is stronger than typical for an unannotated tool.

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?

It is short and front-loads the guiding question, but the body is a run of telegraphic fragments ('Free, no key, and no Authorization header is forwarded. No prompts, keys or personal details in note; no questions or support.') that is denser than it needs to be and harder to parse than plain sentences.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by stating the return value ('recorded/not_recorded') plus auth, privacy, and routing behavior. For a feedback/submission tool this covers what an agent needs to call it correctly; only minor detail is missing.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema, giving a baseline of 3. The description reiterates the decision_id and note constraints but adds no new syntax or format detail beyond what the schema 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 identifies a distinct job: recording a reliability rating for a prior answer ('Was an answer reliable? ... Returns recorded/not_recorded for a rating after acting'). It is clearly different from siblings like decide, rank, or policy_check, and states the return value. The phrasing is choppy, but the verb+resource is identifiable.

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 gives timing context ('after acting') and an explicit exclusion ('no questions or support'), which tells the agent when this tool is and isn't appropriate. It doesn't name an alternative sibling, but the siblings are unrelated capabilities rather than competing paths, so this is close to sufficient.

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