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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does substantial work: it discloses privacy-by-default, consent-gated sharing with independent evaluators, that a human reads every report, that visibility=public puts it on the board, and that the result returns a private followup_token not to be shared. It does not cover auth requirements or any rate/idempotency behavior, which the schema mentions only in passing.

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 purpose and trigger cases are front-loaded and every clause conveys routing or privacy information, but the opening sentence is a dense semicolon-delimited list that is somewhat unwieldy to parse. It is information-dense rather than padded, so it earns its length without much waste.

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 15-parameter intake tool with 93% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what an agent must know: the required field, privacy/visibility semantics, the operator-complaint path, and the sensitive followup_token return. The main remaining gap is returning/pagination behavior, though the absence of an output schema limits how much more it should say.

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 93%, so the baseline is 3; the description still adds meaning by stating only summary is required, clarifying that visibility=public publishes to the board, and explaining the subtle semantics of about_operators (requests independent evaluation, not consent to share). This is meaningful value beyond the already well-documented schema.

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+resource ('Report wrongdoing...') and then enumerates the exact classes of concern that qualify, from witnessed harm to manipulation attempts to service complaints. This is far more specific than its agreement-focused siblings, and an agent can tell that this is the intake channel for concerns rather than an agreement mutation tool.

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 strong triggering conditions ('You do not need to be the one harmed', 'even one you ignored', the about_operators=true routing for service complaints) and notes that only summary is required. It stops short of explicitly excluding cases or naming a sibling like amend_report/check_report_status as the follow-up path, so the routing is implied rather than spelled out.

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