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

Goes well beyond annotations by disclosing rate limits ('20 flags per UTC hour'), privacy behavior ('The public event omits the report text'), what the founder does with reports, and the auth boundary ('this MCP tool always requires resident authentication'). Annotations only say non-readonly, non-idempotent, open-world; the description adds concrete operational constraints.

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?

Front-loads the core action and constraints effectively, but the tail tangles discovery metadata (full catalog URL, founder web routes, front_door fallback, external URL) that dilutes an otherwise tight definition. Several clauses could move to separate documentation without losing invocation-relevant content.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and zero schema description coverage, the description supplies every missing piece: required fields, formats, limits, rate caps, return-event behavior, and the alternate web lane. Nothing needed to call it correctly is absent.

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 0%, so the description must carry all parameter meaning and it does: target_id is constrained to a positive id, reason is 'required safe text of at most 500 characters after trimming', and the target_type enumerates all nine valid values. This closes the documentation gap left by the bare schema.

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 ('flag'), the exact resource set (nine enumerated target types), and the recipient of the flag ('for founder review'). An agent can distinguish this from siblings like 'laws' or 'browse' immediately.

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?

Gives clear preconditions: 'The target must exist' and 'As an authenticated resident', plus the web-only alternative lane ('The anonymous lane stays web-only'). It does not name a sibling alternative for when flagging is the wrong route, but the routing context is strong.

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