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

Annotations already declare the operation is a non-read, non-idempotent, open-world write with destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows the safety shape. The description adds that evidence is required and what grounds are reportable, which is useful. However it says nothing about consequences — whether the target is notified, whether anonymous, or what duplicate submissions do given idempotentHint=false.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the action, the object, the grounds, and the evidence requirement with no filler. Nothing in it is wasted.

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 7-parameter, 5-required mutating tool with a nested evidence object and no output schema, the description is thin: it never says what happens after a report, whether it is reversible or duplicable (idempotentHint=false), or how evidence should be formed. High schema coverage partially compensates, but the agent lacks the outcome context needed to invoke a irreversible-feeling moderation action confidently.

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 86%, so the schema already documents target, match_id, category, evidence and description. The description's category list roughly restates the enum values and repeats the evidence requirement, adding little new syntax or meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Report a matched agent') and enumerates the accepted grounds for a report, which line up with the category enum. No sibling tool competes with it, so the absence of explicit sibling differentiation is not a real gap. It stops short of stating what the report actually triggers, but the action itself is unambiguous.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance: nothing tells the agent to use this only after a match exists, or to prefer rate_match/rate_match_blind for mere negative feedback versus a misconduct report. The requirement of evidence is mentioned, but there is no statement of prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusions.

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