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

Annotations only indicate non-read-only and non-idempotent. The description adds behavioral context: feedback is anonymous, no registration required, and responses are read by the team. This goes beyond annotations by explaining the impact and audience of the feedback, though it doesn't mention how data is stored or processed.

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?

Three concise, engaging sentences with no fluff. Each sentence serves a purpose: invoke action, solicit specifics, and explain impact. Info is front-loaded with 'Tell us what you think.'

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 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the tool's role well, including user experience and purpose. It doesn't explicitly state that submission is a write operation or mention required fields, but the schema covers those details. Overall, it provides sufficient context for an agent to understand its function.

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% (all parameters have descriptions), so baseline is 3. The description loosely maps to some parameters like did_you_find_it and what_is_missing, adding framing context, but it doesn't detail parameter syntax or required rating. Schema already handles parameter semantics adequately.

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's purpose: leaving feedback about picoads. It uses a direct verb ('Tell us what you think') and resource ('picoads'), and is distinct from sibling tools like get_recommendations or register_agent.

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 implies when to use the tool (when you have feedback) and adds useful context (anonymous, no registration required, used for inventory decisions). It doesn't explicitly state alternatives or when not to use, but the unique purpose among siblings makes it clear enough.

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