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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond them: it discloses the return behavior ('Returns own report status'), the required authorization scope ('report:write'), and actionable idempotency guidance for retries.

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 tightly-packed sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. Each sentence carries a distinct fact (purpose, return/auth, retry behavior), though the retry note is slightly compressed.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and a nested required payload, the description covers auth, safety and retry semantics well but omits any description of the required report object contents. It notes the return ('own report status'), compensating somewhat for the absent output schema, but the payload gap limits completeness.

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 0% and the tool takes a nested report object, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It only alludes to request_id ('Preserve request_id and payload on retries') and says nothing about the nested report fields (subject, reason enum values, body limits), leaving the required payload structure undocumented.

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 and resource ('Report a concrete access change or abuse concern') and scopes it ('under the current identity'), which is enough to distinguish it from sibling read/report tools like get_my_contributions or apply_correction. It stops just short of explicitly naming what it is not.

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?

Tells the agent the condition for use ('concrete access change or abuse concern') and adds a concrete retry directive ('Preserve request_id and payload on retries'). Prerequisites ('Requires the connected identity and report:write') are stated. No sibling alternatives or when-not conditions are given, so it isn't a 5.

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