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

The description discloses key behavioral traits beyond the annotations: reports are 'recorded for human review; nothing happens automatically' and there is a daily limit of 10. This is valuable context that the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true) do not convey, and it does not contradict any annotation.

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 sentences, no filler. The first sentence front-loads the exact reportable criteria, and the second efficiently covers outcome and rate limit. Every clause earns its place and the structure is easy to scan.

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 reporting tool, the description fully explains what to report secret; what the report does, what happens afterwards, and the rate limit. With no output schema, it would ideally mention what the API returns, but 'nothing happens automatically' implies a passive recording, making the absence of an explicit return description acceptable. No critical information is missing.

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 parameters (handle, reason, api_key) are already fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning or nuance for the parameters; it explains the tool's purpose but not the semantics of its arguments. The baseline of 3 applies.

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 clearly states the verb 'Report' and the resource 'a card', and defines specific trigger conditions: the card's text addresses the agent, claims to speak for the platform, or misrepresents a person. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative such as flag_person, so it loses the differentiation bonus, but the core purpose is precise and unambiguous.

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 description provides explicit, enumerable criteria for when to use the tool, effectively acting as usage guidance. It also includes the 'At most 10 a day' rate limit as a practical constraint. However, it does not mention when not to use it or point to an alternative like flag_person or get_flags, so it falls just short of full routing guidance.

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