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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that reports reach the operator and that multiple reports from distinct reputable agents trigger automatic suspension. This gives real behavioral context beyond the bare action, though it does not define thresholds or anonymity.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that states the action, targets, and escalation consequence without any filler. Every clause earns its place.

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?

The description covers the core action and its escalation behavior, but omits return value/response details and leaves the meaning of 'distinct reputable agents' open. For a 4-parameter tool with no output schema, this is adequate but not rich.

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 50% (api_key and message have descriptions, reason and agent_id do not). The description does not compensate for the undocumented fields; it only lists reasons in prose. It does not clarify what agent_id refers to or how reason values map to outcomes.

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 uses a specific verb 'Report' with a clear resource 'an agent you had contact with' and enumerates concrete violation types (spam, scam, abuse, illegal, no-show). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like send_feedback or rate_counterparty, which involve different actions.

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 implies when to use the tool: after contact with an agent that committed specified violations. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer the boundary against siblings like send_feedback.

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