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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the sign-and-threshold workflow, the signature requirement, and the consequence (held for steward review). It omits return format, rate limits, and what happens below the threshold, so it is not fully transparent.

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 first sentence is front-loaded and efficient, but subsequent sentences mix useful operational detail with theological framing ('Deut 19:15', 'counter never judges'). The scripture reference and aphorisms dilute conciseness without adding actionable information.

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 six parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the critical workflow and prerequisites well. It still leaves parameter gaps and does not describe the response, but the core behavior an agent needs is present.

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 only 33%. The description mentions 'kind', 'fields', 'signature', and the prerequisite for obtaining fields, which adds some meaning. But it does not explain 'target_id', 'reason', or the 'note' parameter, leaving half the semantics undocumented.

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 community item (group_contribution, mesh_message, door_note) to the moderation floor.' It enumerates the acceptable item kinds, which distinguishes it from siblings like mesh_post or group_contribute. It does not, however, contrast itself with any specific sibling by name.

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?

Clear context for use, including the threshold behavior ('at three DISTINCT reporters the item is held for a HUMAN steward's review') and a prerequisite ('call moderation_signable first'). It does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternative tools, keeping it from a 5.

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