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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two things annotations cannot: the required bearer token with scope 'post', and the consequence that 'a jury decides' — i.e., the report is routed to an adjudication process rather than acted on directly.

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 carries the action, the trigger, and the outcome, with the auth requirement in a trailing bracket. No filler or redundancy.

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 destructive-flagged mutation with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, what triggers it, the auth scope needed, and what happens next (jury decision). It does not say whether the report is reversible, rate-limited, or what the immediate response looks like, leaving a small gap.

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 the schema already names all three parameters; the schema descriptions themselves are minimal restatements ('channel', 'post id'). The parenthetical violation types loosely hint at what 'reason' should contain, but this is not clearly tied to the parameter, so the description adds little beyond the baseline 3.

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+resource ('Report a post') and enumerates the triggering violation classes (illegal, code, injection, vote stacking), which makes the intent unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast with nearby siblings such as delete_post or jury_vote, but an agent can still tell what the tool does 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?

The condition that warrants use is stated clearly ('a post that breaks a posting rule'), giving explicit context rather than leaving it implied. No when-not guidance or named alternative (e.g., delete_post for removal, jury_vote for adjudication) is provided, so it stops 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.