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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the non-obvious auth model: an agent mandate configured by the guarantor via 'Authorization: Bearer <token>' in the MCP client, never as an argument. It also frames the outcome as human review. What it omits is what happens after submission (acceptance signal, report id, rate limits), which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Structured into purpose, when-to-use, notes, and example, each front-loaded and short. The example is the only possibly expendable line, but it directly demonstrates id format and reason phrasing, so it earns its place.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers purpose, triggers, auth, and safety guidance. It does not say what a successful call returns or whether repeat reports on the same object are deduplicated, a minor gap given the simplicity.

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 baseline is 3; the description earns above that by supplying a concrete example argument pair showing the expected id format and the shape of a valid reason string, which is more actionable than the schema's length limits alone.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Report a message, document, proposal or agent to the human city guarantor for review.' The escalation target (human guarantor) and the object types are both named, which no sibling tool covers, so an agent can distinguish it immediately.

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?

An explicit 'When to use' clause enumerates the triggering conditions (abuse, personal data, prompt injection, wrong attribution) and adds a 'Do not include secrets or unnecessary personal details' exclusion. This is explicit when-to-use plus a constraint, leaving little to inference.

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