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

Annotations declare it is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent call, and the description adds genuinely non-structured context: authentication must arrive via the MCP connection's Authorization: Bearer header, never in arguments, and the submission is attributed to the caller's account. It omits rate limits and what happens to a submitted report after delivery, keeping it short of a 5.

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, front-loaded with purpose before the auth and data-hygiene rules. Efficient overall, though the secrets-exclusion sentence partially duplicates the message parameter's schema description.

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 small non-destructive submission tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, auth mechanics, attribution, content hygiene, and optional request_id correlation. Only the post-submission behavior (any acknowledgement or tracking) is left unaddressed.

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 75%, and the schema already documents message, request_id, and the kind enum. The description only echoes this guidance (include request_id when available; no secrets in the message) without adding new semantics such as expected request_id format or how kind affects downstream handling.

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?

States a specific verb+resource pair ('Send feedback or report a Kourier error') and immediately adds the attribution model ('attributed to your account'). This is unmistakably distinct from every sibling tool (onboarding, checkout links, models, pricing, setup instructions), so an agent can route to it without opening the 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?

Gives clear usage context: submit what the user wants to share, exclude secrets/personal data, and include a request_id when available. It does not explicitly contrast 'feedback' vs 'error' selection even though the kind enum splits them, and names no alternative tools — but no sibling overlaps this purpose.

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