sportsdata_feedback

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

Annotations are all false (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=false, idempotentHint=false), providing almost no guidance, so the description must carry the burden. It does so well by disclosing that feedback is recorded locally, only transmitted if SPORTSDATA_TELEMETRY=1 plus a configured endpoint, and that `note` is sent verbatim – important privacy context. It doesn't mention the return value or any server-side effects beyond recording, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 well-structured sentences: the first states the purpose, the second gives usage context, the third covers privacy. It's front-loaded and every sentence earns its place. Slightly verbose in the middle clause, but still efficient and clear.

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, the description covers the trigger conditions, the specific failure mode to report, and the privacy/telemetry behavior. An output schema is present (unseen), so return values need not be described. A minor gap is that it doesn't state what happens after recording (e.g., whether feedback is anonymous), but this is not essential for invoking the tool.

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%; each parameter (helpful, tool, note) has a detailed description in the schema itself. The tool description reiterates the privacy caution about `note` being sent verbatim but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 opens with 'Report whether an answer from this server was useful' – a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes itself from the hundreds of sibling data-retrieval tools by being the only feedback/reporting tool, and it even specifies the exact failure mode (response shape mismatch) that maintainers most need to hear about.

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 explicitly states 'Call this when a tool gave a wrong, empty or misleading answer' and gives a concrete example of when to use it. It doesn't explicitly list when-not-to-use or suggest alternative tools, but the use case is so distinct from the siblings that this is largely unnecessary.

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