Tell the domscout team about a problem or a gap

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It transparently states that the call is free)Skip never consumes credits or quota, that a human reads the submission, and that secrets should be omitted. This adds meaningful operational context beyond the schema, though it does not describe the immediate response or any 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 reasonably well structured and front-loaded with the free/quota note, but it contains redundancy: 'Free' plus 'never consumes credits or quota' plus 'never be charged, by design' says the same thing three times. The use-case list is valuable reticle, but the opening repetition costs conciseness.

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?

For a feedback tool with 7 parametersaging, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides strong usage context, cost behavior, and a human-review note, which covers important operational expectations. However, it leaves partial parameter semantics unexplained and does not describe what happens after submission beyond 'a human reads these', so it is not fully complete.

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 only 43%, so the description should compensate by explaining the uncovered parameters. It does mention including requestId and that 'message' is the main text, but it does not explain 'type', 'severity', 'expected', 'actual', or 'endpoint' beyond what the schema already provides. The field names and enums are somewhat self-explanatory, but the low coverage means the description should do more.

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: to tell the domscout team about a problem or gap. It gives specific verbs ('tell', 'send feedback') and concrete example scenarios (error, undocumented parameter, missing capability, wrong result), which sharply distinguishes it from the data-extraction and crawling siblings.

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?

Usage guidance is explicit with 'Use this whenever something about this API got in your way' and a list of concrete triggers. It also instructs to include the requestId from a failed call and warns against including secrets, but it does not mention any when-not-to-use cases or alternatives, as no sibling directly competes with feedback.

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