Submit Verity Feedback

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing required auth (developer API key, enabled service), the privacy constraint (no secrets, personal info, or transcripts), and the precise non-effects (does not change prices, start trades, or open/merge a PR). It also clarifies the write is private and that a receipt is returned only after storage succeeds, which is meaningful given readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true.

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?

Five compact sentences, front-loaded with the actual action, then preconditions, then content rules, then side effects and return semantics. No 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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required, yet the description still usefully states the receipt-on-success behavior. For an 8-param write tool it covers intent, auth, privacy, and non-effects well; the remaining gap is insufficient guidance on the expected/actual/reproduction/symbol fields.

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% across 8 parameters, so the description carries the burden. It does explain requestId ('include the failed call's requestId when available') and enumerates the category values verbatim, and hints at reproduction via 'reproducible'. But it says nothing about expected, actual, symbol, observedAt, or the reproduction array format, leaving half the params undifferentiated.

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 (submit) and resource (Verity API/MCP bug, missing-capability or data-quality report) plus the scoping detail 'for human review'. This is clearly distinguishable from the read-only data siblings (get_index_price, verify_print, etc.), which never file reports.

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?

Gives concrete context for use: reproducible API/MCP defects, missing capabilities, and data-quality issues. It also specifies preconditions (developer API key, enabled feedback service) and an inclusion guideline (attach requestId when available). It stops short of explicitly naming when not to use it versus an alternative outlet.

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