report_feedback

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

The description adds important behavioral context beyond annotations by warning that all input may be public and that redaction is best-effort. It also lists categories of prohibited data, which is valuable for safe use. It doesn't cover every side effect, but the privacy implications are well disclosed.

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 efficient: a purpose sentence, a brief bulleted list of prohibitions, and a one-line redaction caveat. Every part contributes directly to safe usage and readability.

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 lack of an output schema, it might ideally mention what the user can expect after submission, but the combination of schema details and safety warnings is sufficient for selecting and invoking the tool correctly. The description fully covers the public-content risk and parameter constraints.

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 schema already provides 100% parameter coverage, including descriptions, enums, and constraints. The description reinforces the public-safety requirement but doesn't add substantive semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 opens with 'Submit a feedback report or issue to this server's maintainers,' using a specific verb and resource. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling flow and connection management 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?

It clearly establishes when to use the tool (feedback reports/issues to maintainers) and provides context about public content. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but none of the sibling tools are similar, so exclusions are not necessary.

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