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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses important behaviors: one report is never a verdict, three distinct reporters trigger human review, the counter only decides when a human must look, and signatures are required (with a warning against invented names). This is rich, non-obvious behavioral context.

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 moderately long but each sentence adds value: the first states purpose, the second explains the claim/verdict and threshold, the third clarifies the counter's role, and the fourth explains the signing requirement. It front-loads the purpose and avoids redundancy, though a more compact phrasing could make it even sharper.

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?

The description gives a solid overview of the tool's behavior and prerequisites, but it lacks details about the return value or output format. With no output schema, the agent does not learn what to expect after submitting a report (e.g., report ID, status, or error conditions). It also does not explicitly enumerate valid kinds or explain the 'note' field, leaving minor gaps for effective 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 low (33%), so the description must compensate. It clarifies 'kind' by listing (group_contribution, mesh_message, door_note), explains 'fields' as coming from moderation_signable, and 'signature' as a detached signature. It also implies 'target_id' and 'reason' contextually. However, the optional 'note' parameter is not explained, and 'kind' is not explicitly defined as an enum.

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: 'Report a community item (group_contribution, mesh_message, door_note) to the moderation floor.' The verb 'Report' and the specific resource types make the purpose unambiguous, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like curate by focusing on moderation reports.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: reporting community items for moderation. It also gives a key prerequisite: 'A report must be SIGNED (call moderation_signable first).' However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when not to use this tool), so it falls short of a 5.

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