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

Annotations only declare it is a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive write; the description adds materially new behavior: reports are private, routed to a moderator, and content reported by several independent reporters is hidden until reviewed. That downstream visibility effect is exactly the kind of consequence an agent cannot infer from 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action and grounds, then consequences, then the anti-pattern. Every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition of the name or title.

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 4-parameter, fully documented, output-schema-backed write tool, this covers purpose, misuse avoidance, privacy, and moderation outcome. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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% and all four parameters are required and documented in the schema, so baseline 3 applies. The description names the reportable entity types but adds no format, length, or category-selection guidance beyond what the schema and enums already give.

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 enumerates the exact resource kinds it applies to (question, contribution, claim review, statement, record), with the qualifying grounds (false, illegal, personal data, copyright). An agent can distinguish this from ask_question or contribute_answer without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly carves out a when-not case ('Disagreeing is not a reason to report') and redirects to the correct alternative behavior ('answer or challenge instead'), which maps onto contribute_answer/review_claim among the siblings. This is direct guidance, not implied.

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