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

Annotations already declare this as a non-idempotent write with no destructive hint. The description adds behavior beyond them: it requires login (auth precondition) and notes the report is handled by a moderation backend (asynchronous review, no immediate effect). It does not explain duplicates or limits, but the added auth and processing context is real value on top of the annotations.

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?

Compact single paragraph with the login requirement and core purpose front-loaded, followed by the moments routing detail. Every sentence carries information, though the density is on the high side.

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 4-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the definition covers purpose, auth, and the trickiest parameter routing (moment vs moment_comment). Remaining gaps such as anonymity or post-report flow are minor given annotations already carry the safety profile.

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 100% so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by explaining that targetType selects the report target and, crucially, that moment uses targetId = moment id while moment_comment uses targetId = comment id — a disambiguation not present in the schema's generic field descriptions.

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 violating content / users, with the reportable object types enumerated. It is clearly distinct from the sibling report_* tools (report_dispatch, report_signup_delivery), though it does not explicitly name any sibling to reinforce the distinction.

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 a login precondition and a routing rule for the moments case (moment vs moment_comment), which is genuinely helpful. However there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no statement of what reporting is for versus adjacent moderation actions.

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