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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, open-world call, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context the annotations don't: the report is routed to the service operator for review and is the only escalation path for private rooms.

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, zero filler, with the action and target stated up front and the privacy rationale placed second. Every clause earns its place.

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 submission tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers what is reported and where it goes. What happens after review (confirmation, anonymity, follow-up) is left unstated but is not needed to invoke the tool correctly.

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 room, reason, and message_id are already documented in the schema, and the description only mirrors the room-vs-message distinction. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter 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?

The description gives a specific verb (report) plus a precisely-scoped resource (a room or a specific message) and states the destination (the service operator). No sibling tool covers reporting, and the scope is 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?

It states the triggering condition clearly (illegal or abusive content) and frames itself as the safety channel for private rooms the operator does not otherwise read, which tells the agent when this route is the right one. It stops short of naming any alternative or explicit exclusion.

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