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

Annotations already declare non-readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior. The description adds the key behavioral fact the annotations cannot convey: the report is dispatched to a group-space owner or to platform moderation depending on context. It stops short of describing downstream consequences (moderation queue, notification of the reporter).

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states the action, the eligibility constraint, and the routing rule with no wasted words.

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 three-parameter action tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential what, precondition, and destination. It could clarify what happens after submission (e.g., relationship to review_report / list_reports), but that is a minor gap.

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%, so id, reason, and op_key are fully documented in the schema, including the retry semantics of op_key. The description adds no parameter detail, 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'), the resource ('an object you can read'), and the routing outcome (group owner vs. platform moderation). This clearly separates it from siblings like list_reports and review_report, though those siblings are not named explicitly.

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?

Implies a precondition (the object must be readable) and explains where the report is routed, which is useful context. It does not, however, tell the agent when to prefer this over alternatives such as block, mute, or moderate.

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