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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states that feedback is served raw to get_merchant and not editorialized, which is informative. However, it does not disclose any side effects, permissions required, or whether the submission is reversible.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, each sentence adds necessary information without waste. Highly concise and well-structured.

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?

The description provides key constraints (booking_id required, once per booking, 14-day window) and explains how feedback is used (raw to get_merchant). However, it does not describe return behavior (e.g., success/error responses) or the outcome of submission. Lacks completeness given 6 parameters and no output schema.

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 only 33% (two parameters have descriptions). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it mentions 'Structured fields first' and 'optional free text ≤ 500 chars,' but the free text constraint is already in the schema. No explanation is given for booking_id, would_repeat, or seated_on_time, which are missing from the schema descriptions.

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 'Report how a confirmed reservation actually went,' using a specific verb ('report') and resource ('how a confirmed reservation went'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like cancel_booking, get_availability, etc., which handle different aspects.

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?

Explicit conditions are given: 'Accepted only against a confirmed booking_id, once per booking, within 14 days of confirmation.' It also notes optional free text with a 500-char limit. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, but the context is clear.

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