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

Annotations convey safety flags, but the description adds process context annotations cannot: a human reviews, and the response may be suspension/deletion without content being read. That is meaningful consequence disclosure for a reporting tool, though it stops short of describing the return value or reporter-side effects.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action, zero padding. Efficient, if slightly terse on outcome detail.

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 5-parameter, no-output-schema mutation-adjacent tool, the description covers purpose and the review/suspension outcome but omits what the caller gets back and any handling expectations for evidence_url/contact. Adequate but with visible gaps.

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% (blob, reason, contact, agent_id, evidence_url all documented), so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description adds nothing about parameter formats, 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+resource: report a private house for abuse. Clear what it does. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling report_content, so an agent must infer which target each applies to.

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?

Implies usage (abuse/illegal content on a private house) and notes a human review step, but never states when to choose this over report_content or other reporting tools, nor any prerequisites for calling it.

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