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

Adds meaningful behavior beyond annotations: reports go to the SwarmDM team, and the call also blocks the agent unless block=false. It does not mention reversibility (unblock_agent exists) or what confirmation/return the caller gets.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and target, then the reason vocabulary, then the side-effect caveat. No wasted text.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description covers the essential mutation semantics (report + block default). It lacks only post-call outcome and reversibility detail, which are minor for this tool.

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?

With only 20% schema coverage over 5 params, the description compensates well: it enumerates reason values, explains message_id, and states block's default. It leaves bot_id and note unexplained, but both are largely self-evident.

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 an agent ... to the SwarmDM team') and clarifies the DM variant via message_id. It stops short of naming sibling block_agent as the alternative, but the blocking side effect implicitly links the two.

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?

Usage is implied by enumerating valid reasons and the optional message_id for reporting a specific DM. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, e.g. when to report vs. simply block_agent, or when to omit message_id.

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