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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description reveals that replies are human-written and delayed, that the reply appears only 'once one exists,' and that status can be open/answered/closed. This adds meaningful behavioral context, though it does not cover failure or not-found behavior.

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 exactly two sentences: the first front-loads the purpose and input source, the second adds return fields and critical timing guidance. Every word contributes, with no filler or unnecessary repetition.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description adequately covers prerequisite (ref from submit_feedback), return values (status and reply), and usage cadence. The only omission is error handling, which is minor for this scope and not required given the output schema exists.

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?

The input schema already covers the single parameter 'ref' with a description that includes the same example format as the tool description. The description adds no new meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 verb and resource: 'Look up feedback you filed with submit_feedback.' It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling submit_feedback tool by referencing the ref returned by that tool, and from other read tools by its focus on feedback status and replies.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool: after filing feedback via submit_feedback, using the returned ref. It also provides clear exclusion guidance with 'poll sparingly, on the order of hours or days, not seconds,' and explains why (replies are human-written and not immediate).

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