get_negative_feedback

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only mentions the data type and a plan requirement. It does not specify what counts as negative feedback, whether the operation is read-only, if there are any side effects, or what the return value looks like. The PRO plan note adds minor transparency but leaves major gaps.

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 extremely concise at five words, with no filler. It front-loads the core subject and adds a minimal access note. It loses a point because it is a fragment rather than a complete, structured sentence, but it wastes no words.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is under-specified. It fails to explain the return format, what constitutes negative feedback (e.g., user ratings, comments, search abandonment), or any pagination/filtering options. The PRO plan note is useful but insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 schema has zero parameters, so the description cannot add parameter meaning. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4. The empty schema is clear, and no parameter documentation is needed.

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 uses the noun phrase 'Pages with negative feedback' rather than a clear verb + resource construction. The action is implied by the tool name 'get', but the description itself lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'retrieve', making it less clear than examples with direct action verbs.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus related analytics tools like get_analytics or get_failed_searches. The only additional context, 'PRO plan or higher,' is an access prerequisite, not usage guidance for choosing among alternatives.

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