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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false), and the description adds value beyond that: default filtering to live items and the fact that triage is performed by a human in a panel. It also hints at the response content (other people's notes plus human replies), though it says nothing about ordering, volume, or pagination of the returned list.

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?

Four short sentences, each doing distinct work: what it returns, when to call it, what the default filter is, and what it cannot do. The purpose is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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 three-optional-param read tool with full schema descriptions and annotations covering safety, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing: purpose, sibling routing, default scope, and the mutation boundary are all stated. There is no output schema, but the description sufficiently signals that results include other users' notes and human replies.

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 all three parameters are already documented, including the enum values and the 'по умолчанию живые' default. The description only echoes that default and adds no syntax or interaction detail for q or tool, so the baseline 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 first sentence names the resource (сообщения/замечания о сервере) and adds scope (their state), which is a specific listing behavior, not a restatement of the name. The second sentence explicitly contrasts it with the feedback_add sibling, so an agent can pick between the two without reading either 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?

It gives an explicit trigger ('ЗОВИТЕ ПЕРЕД feedback_add, если не уверены, что о таком ещё не писали'), which is exactly the when-to-use guidance an agent needs, and names the alternative. It also states an exclusion boundary: status changes and deletions are not possible here because a human handles acceptance in the panel.

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