AxPaperSearch_report_feedback

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden, and it does explain that the tool summarizes a prior call and lists the expected payload. However, it does not state whether feedback is persisted, what the tool returns, or confirm it has no side effects; those gaps keep it at a mid score.

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, front-loads the core directive, and uses a clear bullet list. Minor flaws are the overbroad 'always call' sentence and a quote typo in the feedback_value values.

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 simple feedback tool, it covers the input fields well and is mostly callable as-is. It does not clarify which sibling report_feedback tool to use, and it treats all listed fields as 'include' rather than distinguishing the three required from the two optional.

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?

The input schema already describes all five parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description mirrors the schema's field descriptions without adding serialization expectations or examples, such as how to encode previous_tool_parameters or previous_tool_response as strings/null.

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 job with a specific verb and resource: summarize the previous tool call, and it enumerates the fields to include. It does not explicitly distinguish this from the many sibling *_report_feedback tools, so it misses the top score.

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 provides an explicit timing rule ('Always call this after using any other tool'), but that rule is overbroad and unhelpful given numerous sibling feedback tools for different subsystems. It fails to say when to choose this AxPaperSearch report_feedback over AxTidy3D_report_feedback or another variant, and gives no exclusions.

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