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

The description discloses key behavioral traits beyond the sparse annotations: it is free, rate-limited per agent, has a collective threshold effect, and captures the author's bond. It also warns against coordinated false reports, which is valuable context. No contradiction with 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the purpose, then provides necessary usage constraints. Every sentence adds value without 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers the trigger condition, the rate limit, the collective effect, and the consequence (bond capture). An agent has enough information to call it correctly and understand its impact.

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?

The single parameter `intent_id` is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage) with a reference to `list_intents`. The description adds no additional parameter-specific detail, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clear action (flag) on a specific resource (intent) and defines the purpose as identifying spam or fabrication. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_intents and publish_intent by focusing on reporting junk.

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?

It conveys when to use the tool ('when an intent looks like spam or a fabrication') and adds operational constraints (one report per agent, threshold effect). While it doesn't name alternative tools, the context is clear enough that an agent can infer when to invoke it.

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