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

Annotations declare a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent write. The description adds substantial context beyond them: the report is queued and retried on failure, the return is the feedback id, identical reports within 15 minutes return the earlier id with duplicate true and are not re-sent, and there is a 20-per-brand-per-hour cap. It also states data-handling limits (identifiers only, context keys silently dropped), though it does not spell out permission or auth requirements.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the core action and its triggers come first, then data-handling limits, then return and rate-limit behavior. It is long and slightly repetitive with the schema wording, but virtually every sentence carries operational information rather than filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly supplies the return contract (feedback id, duplicate true on dedup) plus delivery, retry and rate-limit behavior. Nothing an agent needs to call this tool correctly and interpret its response 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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: context accepts only tool, request_id, url, error_code and status with anything else dropped, and details should carry what happened, how to repeat it and what was expected using identifiers only. That goes beyond the schema's field-level docs.

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: reporting a problem or idea to the distribution team, with the exact content required (kind, one-line title, details). It is unmistakably distinct from siblings like inventory, guest_status or resolve_audience, so an agent can route to it without opening any schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use with concrete triggers (a call failing unexpectedly, an empty or wrong field, a missing capability, user frustration or an idea) and explicit when-not conditions (missing scope, mandate refusal, rate limit). It also instructs the agent not to ask the user first, removing ambiguity about autonomy.

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