submit_feedback

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two useful traits: the feedback is 'local' (not global/remote) and it 'reranks the same type of future results'. It omits whether repeated submissions overwrite prior feedback, permission requirements, or whether the write is reversible.

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?

Two tight sentences with the action front-loaded and the consequence second. No filler, no repetition of the tool name.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but a mutation-style tool with 5 undocumented parameters and no annotations is under-specified. The description should clarify what candidate_id vs image_url mean and what 'local' scope implies for the agent's data.

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 0% across 5 parameters (4 required), and the description explains none of them. Only the 'accepted' boolean is vaguely inferable from 'whether a returned image matched the user's intent'; query, platform, candidate_id, and image_url are left entirely undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb ('Record') and a concrete subject ('whether a returned image matched the user's intent'), which is clearly distinct from search/fetch/download/list siblings. It stops short of naming a sibling or explicitly contrasting scope, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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 second sentence implies the tool is called after a result is returned and that it feeds future reranking, which hints at context. However, it never states when to call it versus doing nothing, whether it must follow a search_images call, or any prerequisites, so usage is only implied.

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