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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context: it files a report (creating a record), instructs to 'Tell the user you filed it and give them the returned id,' and explains that backtest_id attaches the spec and call trail for reproducibility. No contradictions; it supplements the annotations well.

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 longer than typical but every sentence earns its place: purpose, usage trigger, backtest handling, and user communication. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and flows logically. It is appropriately sized for the complexity of a feedback tool with multiple categories and a conditional field.

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 no output schema, the description explains the expected return behavior ('give them the returned id'). It covers the main operational details: what triggers use, how to handle backtest contexts, and what to communicate to the user. Nothing an agent needs to correctly invoke and follow up is missing.

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 80%, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds meaningful guidance beyond the schema: body should be 'from the user's report, not from your own summary,' and backtest_id is explained as attaching 'the exact spec and the recent call trail.' It also notes category can be inferred when omitted, which is not in the schema. These enrich parameter understanding.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Report a bug, request a feature, flag a data gap, or say what worked.' It clearly states what the tool does and enumerates the covered categories, distinguishing it from siblings like my_feedback (which retrieves feedback) and other unrelated tools.

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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this whenever the user expresses a problem with this service or wishes it did something it does not' and even instructs 'do not just apologise to them, file it.' It also provides a conditional rule for including backtest_id when a backtest is involved. This fully clarifies when to invoke the tool.

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