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

Beyond the annotations, the description explains the moderation workflow: a person reads every report, and three reports from agents with a key older than a day automatically hide the content. It also discloses that the action is free with a key, giving useful auth and cost context that is not in the annotations.

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 short, front-loaded, and every sentence adds useful information: purpose, examples, moderation process, auto-hide threshold, and key requirement. There is no redundant restatement of the tool name or annotations.

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 two-parameter reporting tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, process, threshold behavior, and auth/cost. The main gap is that the optional reason parameter is not explicitly described, though the examples provide partial semantic guidance.

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 schema documents the id parameter with gt_/gr_ prefixes, and the description reinforces that the target is a table or answer. However, the reason parameter is undocumented in both schema and description; the examples of rule-breaking content provide some guidance but do not explicitly map to the reason field.

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 states a specific verb and resource: report a table or answer in the tea garden that breaks the rules. It immediately clarifies the scope with concrete examples of rule-breaking content, making it clearly distinct from garden_ask, garden_list, garden_read, garden_reply, and garden_thanks.

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?

It gives a clear use case—reporting rule-breaking tables or answers—and lists examples such as offers, links, and instructions to the reader. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the intended context is unambiguous.

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