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

The annotations provide no meaningful behavioral guidance, so the description carries the burden. It adds useful transparency by stating 'Free, never charged' and clarifying that this is feedback rather than a defect report. It does not disclose whether submissions create records or reach a human, but it gives agents an accurate sense of the operation's low-risk, non-defect nature.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: scoping, cost behavior, and parameter-routing guidance. The most decision-relevant information is front-loaded, and there is no filler or redundant restating 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?

For a six-parameter tool with a fully described schema and an output schema, the description covers the essential decision: what counts as feedback and when to use report_bug instead. It does not mention that `context` is also required or that it has strict formatting rules, but those are fully specified in the schema and the description's omission does not prevent correct invocation.

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 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter clearly. The description adds meaningful guidance beyond that: it highlights that `summary` is required and one line, and it explains that `details` should capture what the user was trying to accomplish. This helps the agent compose a useful submission without duplicating schema content.

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 ('Tell AnyAPI') and enumerates concrete non-defect feedback examples: missing APIs, missing fields, confusing docs, and friction points. It also explicitly contrasts with report_bug, which makes its scope unmistakable and distinguishes it from a key sibling.

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 states exactly when to use this tool—for non-defect feedback—and explicitly names the alternative: 'Use report_bug instead when something behaved incorrectly.' It also gives example triggers, leaving no ambiguity about which cases belong here versus a sibling.

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