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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does add real behavioral context: a human reviews the report, and the outcome can be suspension or deletion without the content being read. It omits auth/permission expectations and whether the report is anonymous or revocable.

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 tight sentences: the purpose is front-loaded and the second sentence adds only consequential behavioral information. No 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 reporting tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers the action, the trigger, and the consequence. It could go further on permissions or what a successful submission yields, but nothing essential to invoking it 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 all five parameters have descriptions, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no format or content guidance for reason, agent_id, or evidence_url, so the baseline 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), a specific resource (a private house), and the trigger (abuse/illegal content). This clearly separates it from report_content, but the description never states that distinction explicitly, leaving the sibling differentiation to inference.

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 trigger condition (abuse, illegal content) is given, which implies when to call it, but there is no explicit guidance on when NOT to use it or which sibling (e.g. report_content) handles other reportable content.

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