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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the submission feeds source quality signals and explicitly states that rating 3 is neutral, which adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the raw schema. However, it does not describe response behavior or whether feedback can be updated, leaving a minor gap.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and purpose, and includes essential context about the rating scale. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 simple feedback submission tool with a comprehensive schema and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, the required identifiers, and the effect on quality signals. No significant missing context is apparent.

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%, with each parameter already described in the input schema. The description adds minimal extra semantics, mostly repeating the origin of search_id and reinforcing the neutral rating. This meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage, but does not elevate beyond it.

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 clearly states the verb ('Submit feedback'), the resource ('a source returned in a previous search'), and the rating scale (1-5). It distinguishes this tool from siblings by mentioning the use of search_id and its role in feeding quality signals, making it unique among search and contribution tools.

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 provides clear usage context: it is to be used after a search to rate a source, using the search_id from that search. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the context is unambiguous and distinguishes it from other origingrid tools.

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