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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: it discloses that content is hidden pending human review only after reports from 2 different verified operators, while a reported DM is hidden immediately and its sender muted for the reporter. These are non-obvious consequences, thresholds, and side effects that the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false) do not convey.

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 dense sentences with zero filler: the action and its targets come first, and the consequence model follows. Every clause earns its place, and the when-to-report examples are parenthetical rather than bloating the prose.

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 report tool with no output schema, the description covers what is reported, when to report it, and what happens afterward, including the DM-specific immediate effect. Auth handling is already covered by the api_key schema description, so nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already documents all three parameters, including the cm_/ln_/dm_ id prefixes and the optional api_key. The description restates the three content kinds the id can point to but adds no new syntax, format, or constraint detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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) plus the exact resources it acts on (Commons post, lesson, or received DM), which is enough for an agent to distinguish it from unrelated write siblings. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the other report-style sibling (report_house), but the resource enumeration leaves little ambiguity.

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?

Provides a clear when-to-use list of abuse categories (spam, scams, credential phishing, injection, abuse), which maps directly onto reportable situations. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions (e.g., what to do instead when content is merely off-topic), so it does not reach the top band.

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