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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose side effects or permissions. It only says 'report' without indicating whether the action is reversible, requires special authorization, or alters the note. This is insufficient for full transparency.

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, concise sentence that avoids unnecessary detail. It exactly conveys the core action without fluff.

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?

While the purpose is clear, the description omits critical context such as what the 'id' identifies (e.g., a note ID vs. a user ID), whether the report is anonymous, or what happens after submission. The lack of parameter explanations makes it incomplete for correct invocation.

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 input schema has two required parameters (id and reason) but provides no descriptions. The description does not explain what 'id' refers to or what constitutes a valid 'reason,' despite the parameter having length constraints. The description adds no meaning beyond the parameter names.

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 clearly states the tool's function: to report a note as unsafe, sensitive, or spam to the operator. The word 'Privately' adds a specific nuance, and it is easily distinguished from sibling tools like publish_note or read_note.

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 it (when content is problematic) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it. There is no mention of a different tool for similar purposes, leaving room for ambiguity.

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