Send feedback to Invoket

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it's free, requires no auth, returns an acknowledgement id, and never charges — good transparency about cost side effects. However, it does not describe what happens after submission (e.g., persistence, review process, response format details beyond the id) or any rate limits.

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?

Two compact sentences, fully front-loaded with purpose and cost/safety disclosure. Zero wasted words; every clause (free, no auth, returns id, never charges) earns its place.

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 4-param feedback tool with 100% schema coverage and a nested context object, the description plus schema adequately cover purpose, categories, and return. The main gap is no explanation of what the acknowledgement id means or broader submission behavior, but this is minor for a simple feedback 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 covers 100% of parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by pre-announcing the acknowledgement-id return and confirming no payment. It doesn't add per-parameter detail, but the schema is already descriptive (category enum, target with example, maxLengths). Given high coverage, the description adds marginal value above baseline.

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?

Clear verb+resource (submit review / send feedback) with specific purpose: report a gap, bug, missing case, data gap, or pricing concern about Invoket. The description distinctly frames this as a feedback channel, distinguishing it from the many data-lookup sibling tools.

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?

States what kinds of feedback to submit (bugs, gaps, pricing) but does not explicitly say when NOT to use it or name alternatives. However, given the sibling set are all data/inquiry tools with no obvious alternative feedback channel, the guidance is reasonably clear. The 'never charges' line disambiguates it from billing tools.

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