Send opportunity feedback

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful context like the subscription requirement and feedback categories, but it does not disclose the actual behavioral effect (e.g., that it sends data to PeepTrend, is a write operation, or whether it is reversible) or any response/return behavior.

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 only two sentences long. It is front-loaded with the action and includes all necessary high-level information without any filler or redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple and the description covers purpose and prerequisite, but it lacks parameter-level guidance and does not explain the outcome of sending feedback (no output schema). It is adequate for a basic tool but has clear gaps in completeness.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It loosely maps to the 'type' parameter by listing the categories, but it never mentions 'gameId' or 'message', leaving two out of three parameters unexplained and failing to connect the feedback categories to the enum values.

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 a specific verb 'Tell PeepTrend' and resource 'opportunity', and enumerates the feedback categories (useful, wrong, saturated, etc.), making its purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like check_gaming_niche or save_opportunity_workflow.

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 description clearly implies a context (providing feedback on opportunities) and includes a prerequisite ('Requires an active PeepTrend subscription'), but it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternatives among siblings.

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