feedback_details

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

Beyond annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), description adds value: notes PII sensitivity, pagination via _links.next, and references the spec URL. Provides behavioral context not captured by annotations alone.

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?

Description is front-loaded with purpose but includes inline return format (could be output schema). Some redundancy with schema descriptions. Could be more concise, e.g., by moving long return field list to output schema.

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 no output schema, description adequately covers return fields, pagination, and PII warning. Includes spec URL for details. However, I deduct for not clarifying differentiation from sibling feedback tools.

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 coverage is high (92%), so the schema already documents parameters well. The description mentions filterable fields collectively but adds little semantic value beyond the schema. Appropriate baseline score.

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?

Description states it returns raw customer feedback entries (uninstall/disable/unsubscribe) with reasons and free-text messages. Specifies return format fields and pagination. Clearly identifies its resource and scope, distinguishing it from aggregated feedback tools like feedback_metrics_by_metric.

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?

Implies use for detailed raw feedback data by listing filters, but no explicit when to use vs. alternatives or when not to use. The sibling list includes feedback_metrics_by_metric, but the description does not clarify the distinction.

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