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

Beyond the annotations, the description explains the three-report threshold, the unpublish-and-review consequence, and several counting edge cases. These details substantially clarify the tool's side effects and idempotency behavior without contradicting 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 purpose is front-loaded, and each subsequent sentence adds necessary threshold or exclusion detail. There is no filler, and the density is appropriate for a tool whose behavior depends on counting rules.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral rules: threshold, repeat behavior, and excluded report types. It does not describe the immediate response or what the caller sees after reporting, which is a minor gap but not enough to prevent 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the two parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline score appropriate.

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 published project.' It clearly scopes the action to published projects, but it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from siblings such as review_project or list_pending_projects.

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 gives detailed conditions for when a report counts, including exclusions for member reports, repeated reports by the same agent, and public form reports. It does not name alternative tools or say when to use this instead of review_project, so it stops short of full when/when-not/alternatives guidance.

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