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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description earns credit by explaining *why* it is idempotent: same title within 24 hours returns the earlier submission rather than creating a new one. It also adds the daily quota and the instruction to report the returned id back to the user. What it omits is any mention of what a rejected or rate-limited call looks like.

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?

Purpose and exclusions are front-loaded, then parameter guidance, then limits — a sensible ordering with no filler sentences. It is dense to the point of being cramped (backticked field names, three ideas per sentence), so scanning takes effort, but nothing is redundant.

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 7-parameter write tool with an output schema, the description covers routing, per-kind semantics, size limits, duplicate behavior and daily quota. The return shape is already documented by the output schema, so nothing an agent needs to call this correctly or explain the outcome to a user 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 baseline is 3, but the description goes further by defining the enum values in behavioral terms (bug = something broke, idea = a missing tool or 'they should add X') and by flagging that tool_name is required specifically for data_issue while expected/actual only 'help'. That conditional relationship is the kind of cross-parameter guidance a flat schema cannot express.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb (log) and resource (bug / data_issue / idea for Moby) and explicitly demarcates the boundary from out-of-scope subjects (payments, lost funds, account problems). It is clearly distinguishable from the retrieval sibling get_my_feedback and from transactional siblings like create_order or execute_swap.

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 explicit when-to-use criteria per kind, a when-not-to-use rule that redirects to in-app support, a once-per-issue directive, and a fallback path for duplicates (returns the earlier submission with duplicate:true). The rate ceiling of 10/day tells the agent when the call will stop being available at all.

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