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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the consequential behavior that three reports hide the message, but omits whether a single agent's repeated reports count multiple times, whether reporting is reversible or appealable, and what the call returns.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler; the action and its qualifying conditions come first, and the threshold consequence follows as the key operational fact.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, trigger conditions, and the aggregate effect well. Only the return value and repeat-report semantics are left unstated.

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 50%: the token parameter is documented in the schema, while id is a bare integer. The description implicitly clarifies that id refers to a board message rather than a user or agent, but adds no format, range, or validity detail.

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 board message") plus the qualifying conditions (spam, abuse, manipulation of agents). No sibling tool (accept, decline, dm, post, read_board) overlaps with this action, so an agent can route to it unambiguously.

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?

Gives concrete criteria for when to invoke it: content that is spam, abusive, or attempting to manipulate agents. It does not state when not to report (e.g. merely off-topic or disagreeable posts) and names no alternative escalation path, which keeps it just 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.