submit_feedback

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

Annotations are minimal (only readOnlyHint=false, etc.), so the description carries the burden. It discloses that feedback is 'reviewed weekly and drives product improvements', and mentions 'Free tier'. It also specifies the return format. This is sufficient for a non-destructive feedback tool, though it could mention latency or side effects.

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 well-organized: purpose, usage guidance, parameter list, return value. It is comprehensive but not overly verbose. Every sentence adds value. A slight reduction in parameter detail could be possible if the schema had descriptions, but given the 0% coverage, the current structure is appropriate.

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 the tool's complexity (5 parameters, 3 required, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage, parameter details, and return format. It also provides example values for optional parameters. No gaps are apparent.

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 input schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description fully compensates. It explains rating (1-5 satisfaction), category with explicit enum meanings, comment (max 2000 chars), tool_name (with example), and report_id (purpose). This is highly valuable for correct usage.

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 explicitly states 'Submit feedback about this MCP server or a VOP verification result', which is a specific verb+resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like verify_output, check_verdict, and submit_appeal, which handle verification or appeals rather than general feedback.

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 advises 'Use after any tool call to report issues, request features, or share what worked well', providing clear context for when to use this tool. It also explains the meaning of each category. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, though the distinction from siblings is implicit.

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