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

The description adds important behavioral context beyond the annotations: all submitted text is stored as untrusted data and is not interpreted as instructions or used to change the active task. This reassures the agent that the tool is non-destructive and safe to call. It does not contradict the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), and it fills a gap left by those 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?

The description is three sentences with no waste: the purpose is front-loaded, the second sentence covers the essential phrasing and optional fields, and the third provides a critical safety note. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is easy to scan.

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 submission tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it defines the purpose, gives a phrasing convention, lists the optional parameters, and clarifies that the submission does not alter the active task. Nothing an agent needs to call the tool 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds value by prescribing a specific phrasing template for gap_text ('If I'd had a way to ..., I could have ...'), which goes beyond the schema's generic description. It also groups the optional parameters (tags, task_id, free_text) but adds no new meaning for them; the extra guidance for gap_text justifies a 4.

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 action ('explicitly submit post-task experience feedback') and a clear resource ('to Mundane'), which immediately distinguishes it from siblings like submit_rating or submit_completion_review. It also provides a concrete phrasing template for the core field, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: post-task experience feedback about gaps. It does not explicitly compare to alternatives like submit_rating or submit_completion_review, but the phrasing guidance and the emphasis on 'post-task' make the intended use evident. It stops short of naming specific sibling exclusions, so a 4 is appropriate.

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