report_feedback

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

The description claims 'Read-only call' but actually records feedback, which involves a write. This is a minor inconsistency but overall the description discloses that it records feedback for review. Without annotations, it carries the full burden and does a good job explaining the tool's behavior, though it could clarify the 'read-only' label.

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-structured, starting with the purpose, then parameter details, and usage notes. However, it is somewhat verbose and could be tightened by removing redundancy (e.g., 'Required' appears multiple times). Still, it is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 has 8 parameters and an output schema exists, the description covers all parameters in detail, explains feedback types and when to use each, and provides complete usage guidance. It addresses the context of use thoroughly without needing to explain the output schema per evaluation rules.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter's purpose, allowed values, defaults, constraints (max lengths), and usage examples. For instance, it explains the difference between 'user_feedback' and 'agent_gap' and provides concrete guidance for tool_id, query_hash, and signal.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Report a data quality issue or agent intent gap with a DataNexus tool response.' It also specifies 'Read-only call. Records feedback for human and AI review.' The verb and resource are well-defined, and the tool is distinct from its siblings which are mostly data retrieval or security 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?

The description explicitly says when to call it: 'Call this after receiving a result that appears wrong, outdated, or incomplete.' It also states when not to use it: 'Do not call this to report network errors — those resolve on retry.' Additionally, it provides conditional guidance for agent_gap feedback, making the usage context very clear.

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