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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the basic behavioral profile is covered. The description adds that feedback goes to the docs team and is for fixing the documentation, but does not disclose what happens after submission, such as confirmation or duplicate behavior. This is a minor gap given annotation coverage.

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 three sentences with no wasted wording. The primary action and target are front-loaded, followed by concrete usage examples and exclusions. Every sentence contributes to correct agent behavior.

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 simple two-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose, when to use, and what not to use it for. The only missing element is any statement about the response or post-submission behavior, but this is not critical for selecting and invoking 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 input schema covers 100% of the parameters with clear descriptions for both path and feedback. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies; the schema already carries the semantic weight.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Report a problem with this documentation site.' It clearly scopes the tool to documentation content issues and explicitly contrasts it with product support and feedback about the tool or assistant, which differentiates it from the sibling query/search 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?

The description provides explicit when-to-use conditions: 'Use when a documentation page is incorrect, outdated, confusing, incomplete, or has a broken example.' It also names exclusions, saying it is not for product support requests or feedback about the tool/assistant, giving an agent clear routing guidance.

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