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

Annotations already declare this as a non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, closed-world write, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuine behavioral constraint beyond that: personal data must never go into the comment, and the effect is ranking improvement. It does not explain what a repeat report on the same offer_id does (overwrite vs. append), which is the main behavior an agent might get wrong.

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 tight sentences: what to send, why it matters, and the privacy rule. The action and its data source are front-loaded with no redundant or filler wording.

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 4-parameter tool with full schema coverage, annotations, and no output schema, the description covers purpose, data source, and the key privacy constraint. The remaining gap is failure behavior (e.g., invalid or unknown offer_id) and whether re-reports overwrite prior feedback.

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 all four parameters are already documented, including the reaction enum and the comment's no-personal-data rule. The description restates offer_id provenance and the enum values rather than adding syntax, format, or edge-case meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (report) and resource (user reaction to an offer), enumerates the exact allowed reactions, and names the sibling tool that supplies offer_id. An agent can distinguish this from search_offers, get_offer, or get_stats without opening any schema.

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 trigger is clear: call it after showing an offer, using the offer_id returned by search_offers, and it explains the downstream benefit (better ranking). It stops short of explicit exclusions such as when not to report or how to handle an offer the user never saw.

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