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

Annotations already declare a safe, non-destructive write operation in a closed world. The description adds useful context: the report is tied to DSA Art. 16, and providing a contact email triggers an automatic confirmation of receipt—a behavioral side effect not captured by annotations.

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 with a colon-separated list of target types. Every clause adds value—legal basis, valid targets, and contact behavior—with zero filler.

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 four-parameter reporting tool with annotations but no output schema, the description covers purpose, legal context, target types, and the contact-email side effect. What happens after submission (moderation flow, anonymity) is not described, but that is a minor omission for correct invocation.

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?

The description clarifies the enum values for target_type (especially 'ding' as an entry under Lending & Giving) and reiterates the contact email behavior already in the schema. However, target_id (an integer) remains completely undocumented in both schema and description, leaving a notable gap at 50% schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb ('melden') and resource ('rechtswidrigen Inhalt') and references the legal basis (Art. 16 DSA). It also enumerates the valid target types, making it unmistakable what the tool does and how it differs from all siblings (none of which are reporting tools).

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 purpose implies when to use it (to report illegal content), but there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or on alternatives. A sibling like 'contact_provider' could appear related, yet the description does not clarify the boundary between reporting content and contacting a provider.

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