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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows this is a mutating operation. The description adds no additional behavioral context, such as whether a report is immediately visible, whether it creates a permanent record, or what happens after submission. It does not contradict the annotations, but it also does not enrich them.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no fluff, which is structurally strong. It loses a point because its brevity comes at the expense of necessary parameter and usage context.

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 destructive tool with a nested required data object, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, this description is far too sparse. It leaves an agent without enough information to construct a correct report, understand return behavior, or choose between report_content and report_space_content.

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% for the top-level parameter, and the tool description names no parameters. Although the nested 'reason' field has a schema description, the description does not explain entity_id, details, or how the data object should be structured for a valid report.

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 names a specific action ('Report'), a resource ('content'), and the purpose ('for administrator review'), so an agent can infer the tool's basic function. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling report_space_content, and the name alone does not clarify the relationship between the two.

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 gives no guidance on when to use report_content versus report_space_content or any other reporting/list-reporting sibling. It states a general use case ('prohibited content') but no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative selection criteria.

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