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

Annotations only declare the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=false); the description adds the destination mechanism (a Linear issue with email fallback), the no-sign-in requirement, and the data-minimization guarantee that only user-approved content is sent. These are concrete behavioral facts an agent cannot derive from annotations.

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 core action and audience scope, then mechanism, then the optional-email rule; no filler sentences. It is a long run-on paragraph, which costs a point on structure but not on density.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers everything else that matters: destination, fallback path, auth requirement, privacy scoping, and audience exclusions. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly 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 the schema already defines all four parameters including the category enum and email conditionality. The description's 'add the user's email only if they want a reply' restates the email schema, and 'name' is not addressed at all, so baseline 3 is correct.

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 and resource ('send feedback to the people who build this product') and immediately distinguishes the audience from the user's own organization, crew, and clients. It also contrasts itself with the messaging tools, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings 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?

Explicitly says what qualifies (bug reports, feature suggestions, support questions, praise) and what does not ('does not message anyone in the user's organization - the messaging tools do that'). The exclusion plus the named alternative is exactly the when/when-not guidance this dimension rewards.

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