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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint=false annotations, the description discloses that data is scoped to the current API-key user, newest-first ordering, the status values, and the presence of a team reply when available. It does not cover pagination behavior or limits in detail, but the annotations already carry the safety profile.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds scope and usage details without unnecessary repetition. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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 read-only two-parameter list tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description is complete enough: it explains the returned fields, ordering, user scoping, status values, and the inability to query other users. No critical agent-facing information 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 description coverage is 100%, so both the limit and status parameters are already well documented in the schema. The description adds context around status values and ordering but does not add parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool returns the current user's earlier feedback submissions and their statuses, including fields and ordering. It also distinguishes this from querying another user's data, which sharpens the scope against sibling tools like submit_feedback.

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?

It gives useful usage context: mention a shipped item to the user when relevant, and it explicitly notes that this only returns the current user's own data with no way to query someone else's wallet. It does not explicitly name submit_feedback as the alternative for adding new feedback, but the context is otherwise clear.

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