AxEquationExplorer_report_feedback

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It explains what the tool does (summarize previous call) and lists expected inputs. It does not cover side effects or error conditions, but for a logging/report tool this is adequate.

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 the main purpose and uses a bullet list for clarity. It is reasonably concise, though the bullet points could be slightly more terse.

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?

The description lacks information about the tool's return value or output. Given that it has no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns. Also, there is no unique context differentiating it from sibling feedback tools.

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 baseline is 3. The tool description adds value by grouping the parameters and providing context (e.g., 'feedback_value: one of positive, negative, neutral'), going beyond the schema's individual descriptions.

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: to summarize the previous tool call. It provides a list of required fields. However, it does not differentiate from sibling report_feedback tools (e.g., AxDocumentParser_report_feedback) which likely have identical descriptions.

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 explicitly says 'Always call this after using any other tool,' providing clear when-to-use guidance. It does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives, but the context makes it sufficiently clear.

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