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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: it records data for the team, does not count against quota, has per-user rate limits, and explains ok/reason/support_email/reply/duplicate outcomes. The description also warns against fabricated or softened reports and explains the duplicate flag.

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 purpose and when-to-call rules, then structured into clear constraints and result behavior. It is longer than strictly necessary and repeats some `query` guidance already present in the schema, but the length is largely justified by the privacy and reporting requirements.

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 a five-parameter write tool with an output schema, the description covers the important gaps: auth requirement, reporting constraints, privacy redaction, rate limiting, duplicate detection, and failure reasons. Nothing essential for correct invocation appears 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 schema already documents all five parameters. The description still adds meaningful semantics: include `query` only for search-result reports and omit it for quota/pricing/feature requests, and preserve the user's actual words in `message` while removing identifying details.

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 precise verb and resource: send the user's feedback/problem reports back to the Thai Legal team, and adds the prerequisite that the account must be connected. This is clearly distinct from the sibling search/research 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?

Gives an explicit ranked list of when to call, including direct user requests and confirmed reports of missing/wrong content. It also states a clear when-not rule: do not call merely because the user changes search terms or asks a new question.

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