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

Goes beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true) by disclosing the reward mechanics (+2 reads, capped at 20/day), that one record is kept per installation/card, and that no raw question or conversation is stored. These are genuinely useful behavioral details not derivable from the structured fields, though return/error behavior is unstated.

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 compact, information-dense sentences with the precondition front-loaded. No filler, though the reward sentence is slightly tangential to invoking the tool and the jargon ('owner-enabled feedback') assumes familiarity.

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 2-param write tool with no output schema, the description covers the precondition, payload shape, idempotency, and reward consequence, which is most of what an agent needs. Auth/permission requirements and error or response behavior remain unspecified.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden. It identifies the two params as 'Card ID plus a fixed reason code', which maps id->card ID and code->reason code, but it does not explain the meaning of the enum values (used, not_relevant, outdated, incorrect) or the required string format of id.

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: 'report whether a previously read card was used', which is distinct from siblings like read_research or submit_knowledge_card. It is clear what the tool does, though it never names a sibling to route against, so it stops short of the 5 level.

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?

'Only with owner-enabled feedback' establishes an explicit precondition/exclusion for when this tool applies. It provides clear usage context but never names an alternative tool or the fallback when feedback is not owner-enabled, so no routing is given.

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