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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context beyond those annotations: one feedback record per installation/card, privacy constraints ('no raw question or conversation'), and a downstream reward effect of +2 reads capped at 20/day. It stops short of 5 by not covering auth requirements or error behavior.

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 front-loaded with the condition and core action, then efficiently covers parameters, record constraints, and side effects. Each sentence contributes useful information, though the reward-cap sentence is more domain context than invocation-critical detail. It is well structured and appropriately sized.

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?

There is no output schema, and annotations cover the safety profile, so the description is largely complete for a two-parameter feedback tool. It covers purpose, precondition, parameters, idempotency-like behavior, privacy, and reward side effects. It does not describe the response format or failure modes, which keeps it from a 5.

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 parameter meaning. It does map both parameters: 'Card ID' for id and 'a fixed reason code' for code, and adds an important constraint about not including raw question or conversation. It does not explain each enum value individually, so a 4 is warranted.

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 states a specific verb and resource: report whether a previously read card was used. It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like read_research and search_research by focusing on post-read feedback. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast a sibling tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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 phrase 'Only with owner-enabled feedback' gives a necessary precondition for using the tool. However, it does not explain when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. Usage is therefore implied rather than fully guided.

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