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

The description discloses the key behavioral trait that 'status' is always 'open' initially and there is no tool to check its status afterward - directly managing expectations about the asynchronous and fire-and-forget nature of the operation. It also states the return format ({feedback_id, status}) and what 'success' looks like versus failure. While the description doesn't mention rate limits or specific authorization details (owner vs sub-key permissions), the schema already covers which keys are valid. With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden well beyond what structured data offers.

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 about three sentences and packs in purpose, usage context, who can call, and a full behavioral explanation of the response and outcome. It front-loads the purpose and the non-support distinction, which is the most critical decision point for an agent. Every sentence adds meaningful information; there is no filler or redundancy.

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 that the tool has 5 parameters all with good schema descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations, the description goes beyond covering the essentials. It explains the complete lifecycle: what happens upon submission (status always 'open'), that there is no polling tool, and what constitutes success. The addition about budget being the only prioritization signal and the honesty of '0' rounds out the contextual picture fully. There is nothing an agent needs to know to use this tool correctly that 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds substantial semantics beyond the schema. Specifically, for 'pledged_budget_usd', it explains the declaration-only nature ('This is a declaration only — nothing is charged or reserved'), the prioritization relevance, and that '0' is a valid honest answer. The 'api_key' parameter gets context on what it is and how it's sent (Authorization header), which complements the schema's listing of allowed keys. The description also clarifies the output shape and the lack of a follow-up tool, enriching 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 begins with 'Report a bug, request a feature, or flag that pricing feels wrong' - a specific list of actions on a specific feedback channel. It immediately distinguishes this from a support ticket, clarifying that this is a prioritization signal rather than a customer-service mechanism. The description clearly identifies the resource (feedback submission) and the scope (the only channel for this purpose).

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('this is the one feedback channel into how the operator prioritizes what to build next') and what it is not ('not a support ticket that gets a reply'). It also clarifies who can use it ('Any valid, unrevoked key can call this, owner or sub-key'), giving the agent clear context for invocation. It gives a clear schema of what happens after submission and that no follow-up tool exists, guiding expectations on usage.

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