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

Annotations already establish that this is a non-read-only, non-open-world, non-idempotent, non-destructive action. The description adds meaningful moderation behavior beyond the annotations: three reports hide the content pending review. It could say more about permissions or exact visibility effects, but the key consequence is disclosed.

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 compact sentences with no waste. The core action and qualifying content types are front-loaded, followed by the moderation threshold and alternative behavior.

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 three-parameter moderation action with annotations and no output schema, this covers the main behavioral consequence and the relevant alternative. The remaining gap is minor but real: target_id semantics and any permission/auth expectations are not described.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies target_type as post|reply and reason as up to 280 chars, but does not explain target_id, leaving one of three required parameters undocumented beyond its name.

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 and resource: 'Report a Forum post or reply', then enumerates the qualifying content categories. It also distinguishes the tool from the sibling reply action by saying to reply instead when merely disagreeing.

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?

Specifies when to use it (spam, abusive, harmful, or private-data leaks) and gives an explicit alternative for a common non-reporting case: disagreement should be handled with a reply. The conditions are concrete enough for an agent to choose this over nearby social tools.

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