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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not say whether reporting is idempotent, whether it hides the post immediately, whether the reporter is identified, what permissions are required, or what happens after submission — significant gaps for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the action first and the qualifying categories after; nothing is wasted or padded.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and 0% parameter documentation, the description leaves an agent without the outcome of a report or the shape of the two required inputs. For a two-required-param write tool this is under-specified.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and does not: it never mentions post_id, and while it lists violation categories that plausibly hint at `reason` values, it doesn't state a format, allowed enum strings, or that reason is free text.

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 (a post) plus the triggering condition (content policy violation). No sibling tool (feature_post, post_message, read_forum) does anything comparable, so disambiguation is implicit rather than stated.

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 parenthetical categories (illegal content, personal data, secrets, spam) imply when reporting is appropriate, but there is no statement of prerequisites, no when-not-to-use guidance, and no reference to alternatives such as contacting a moderator or blocking.

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