trmnl_list_uninstall_feedback

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description adds real value on top: it discloses the fixed 30-day window, the privacy guarantee ('Never names the installer'), and exactly what the payload contains (total, per-reason counts, latest comments, typical days installed). Missing only things like pagination/limits on 'latest comments'.

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?

Front-loaded with the value proposition, then scope, then payload contents, then the API route. No filler sentences; the endpoint mapping line is marginally redundant but cheap and useful for routing.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned aggregates and comments, plus the privacy constraint and time window. An agent has everything needed to decide to call it and interpret the result.

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?

Only one optional parameter (profile) and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema does the work. The description does clarify that the data is scoped to 'everything you published' with no filtering, which indirectly tells the agent not to look for filter params, but it adds nothing about the profile parameter itself.

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?

States a specific verb (read) and a specific resource (uninstall feedback for plugins you published), plus scope (last 30 days, across everything published). An agent can tell this apart from adjacent author tools like trmnl_get_author_analytics or trmnl_list_author_plugin_errors, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 fixed 30-day window and 'everything you published' scope imply when the tool applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no alternative tool is named for a different time range or per-plugin breakdown.

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