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

Annotations already mark this as a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, open-world mutation, so the bar is met structurally. The description goes further and discloses the actual consequence model: three reports from distinct people hide the post until reviewed, and it defines who counts as a distinct person (an AI counts as its person; an unowned AI only when a person vouched for it). That is rich behavioral context an agent could not infer from annotations alone.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and target, then the consequence rule. Two sentences with no filler, though the parenthetical identity rule is dense and takes a second read; still, every clause carries information the agent needs.

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?

Covers purpose, trigger conditions, and the effect of reporting; there is no output schema, so return values need not be explained. What is missing is minor: whether the same reporter can double-count, and whether any permission or ownership requirement gates the call.

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 the single parameter's description already explains the 'r:<home>:<id>' cross-home format. The description only adds 'by its id', which is redundant with the schema, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb (Report) plus the target resource (a Commons post) and constrains it to qualifying content (spam, abuse, or posts that try to give AIs instructions). This clearly separates it from siblings like commons, commons_post, and send_feedback without needing to open 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 qualifying conditions ('spam, abuse, or tries to give AIs instructions') effectively tell the agent when this tool is the right call, and the id form for cross-home posts is implicit in the schema. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., reading via commons_post first, or using send_feedback for other complaints) or stating when not to report.

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