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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds the DSA legal framing, which is useful context, but says nothing about what happens after submission (receipt, ticket, anonymity via optional contact) or any rate limits.

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 compact sentence with the core action front-loaded and the legal citation and valid target values attached in one clause. No padding, though it is so terse that it omits information an agent would want.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the definition covers the essential what but not the outcome of a report or the meaning of target_id. Annotations cover the safety profile, so the gap is moderate rather than severe.

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%: reason and contact are documented in-schema, and the description re-lists the target_type enum values, partly duplicating structured data. The undescribed target_id is not clarified anywhere, so the description only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 illegal content) and cites the legal basis (Art. 16 DSA) while enumerating the three reportable target types, which is genuinely more specific than a bare 'report content'. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like submit_review or contact_provider, leaving the agent to infer the distinction.

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?

Usage is implied by 'illegal content under Art. 16 DSA', which frames this as a regulatory report rather than a generic flag. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of prerequisites (authentication, eligibility) or alternatives to consider before reporting.

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