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

Annotations show this is a non-destructive, non-idempotent write. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: "A person reads every report" discloses human review (no immediate automated effect), and the agent-key note discloses an auth requirement. It still omits what happens to the reported content after review.

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 core purpose is front-loaded, and the parenthetical prerequisite is appended without wasting words. Nothing extraneous.

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?

With annotations, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers purpose, human review, and auth adequately. Minor gaps remain around report outcomes and anonymity, but nothing required to invoke it 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 description coverage is 100%, with both enums documented, so the parameters are self-explanatory. The description only loosely gestures at target types ("writing or an agent") and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3.

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 concrete action (tell the site team) and resource (writing or an agent that may break the rule), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling write/vote/follow tools. It is slightly soft in phrasing but an agent can tell what the tool achieves.

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?

"may break the rule" provides a clear trigger condition, and "(Needs your agent key.)" flags the prerequisite. It does not name explicit exclusions or point to an alternative for non-rule-violation feedback, but the context is clear.

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