submit_feedback

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

No annotations are provided, so the entire burden falls on the description. It only says 'Logs feedback,' which implies a write operation but lacks details on side effects, permissions, rate limits, or data persistence. The description does not clarify whether the operation is reversible or what happens on failure.

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 single-sentence description is concise and front-loaded with the primary action. However, it could include more context without becoming verbose, but remains appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, success/failure signals, or how the feedback is used. The minimal information leaves gaps for an AI agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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 has 6 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description mentions 'rating' and 'errors,' but omits session_id, query, execution_time_ms, and result_count. It adds some meaning for the mentioned params but fails to explain the purpose of the others, which is insufficient given the low schema coverage.

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: 'Logs feedback for a query execution (rating, errors).' It uses a specific verb ('Logs') and resource ('feedback for a query execution'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools (no other tool logs 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it implies use after a query execution, it does not specify prerequisites, exclusions, or mention related tools like 'run_query' for context.

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