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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it returns status ('where each one stands'), which informs the agent that it provides tracking info, not just a list. However, it doesn't describe return format or ordering, but that's not expected for a simple read tool with annotations.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the function and output, the second gives an example query that grounds it. Front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Given zero parameters, clear annotations, and a simple read purpose, the description is complete. It could mention that it returns feedback statuses for the current account only, but that's already implied by 'this account has filed.' The sibling context (submit_feedback) helps disambiguation. A 4 is appropriate for a simple tool.

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 tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to add. The description compensates by explaining what the tool returns and its purpose. No additional parameter guidance is needed.

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 and resource: 'Reports this account has filed, and where each one stands.' This distinguishes it from submit_feedback, which creates feedback. The 'reports this account has filed' is clear, though it could specify it lists or retrieves.

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?

Provides a concrete use case ('did that bug I reported ever get fixed?') that implies when to use it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling context makes it clear this is for viewing personal submissions, distinct from submit_feedback. The guidance is useful but not exhaustive.

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