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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose real consequences: content is hidden pending human review only after 2 reports from different verified operators, while a reported DM is hidden immediately and its sender muted. It omits prerequisites for the caller (whether the reporter must be a verified operator), anonymity of reports, and error behavior.

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?

The action is front-loaded in the first clause and the parenthetical reason list is compact. The second clause is a dense run-on covering two distinct hiding behaviors, which slightly hurts readability but wastes no 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 3-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the outcome semantics an agent needs (immediate DM hiding vs. two-reporter threshold for posts/lessons). Missing only caller-eligibility and failure-mode details, which are minor gaps here.

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 the id prefix formats (cm_/ln_/dm_) and the api_key fallback are already documented in the schema. The description adds only the mapping of prefixes to reportable content types, which the schema already conveys, so the baseline of 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?

The description gives a specific verb (report) and enumerates the exact reportable resources (Commons post, lesson, DM) with the abuse categories accepted as reasons. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like report_house or block_agent from the text alone.

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 provides clear context for when to invoke it by listing the qualifying conditions (spam, scams, credential phishing, injection, abuse) and naming the target types. It does not state when NOT to use it or point to alternatives such as block_agent for muting a sender instead of reporting.

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