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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and non-idempotent, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: it names the reviewer (Wall Marketing), promises prompt review, and discloses the outcome (the advert is removed from that screen if the objection is reasonable). It stops short of saying what happens if the objection is rejected or whether the report is reversible.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the process it triggers. Every clause carries information (who reviews, what happens next); no filler or repetition of the title.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values. It covers the purpose, the trigger condition, and the downstream consequence of filing a report, leaving only edge cases (rejected reports, latency) implicit. Adequate for a 3-parameter, single-purpose reporting 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so device_id, order_id, and reason are already documented in the schema ('the screen, from host.overview', 'the advert's order_id', 'What is wrong with the advert'). The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb (object/report) and resource (an advert showing or scheduled on your screen), so the action is unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling advertiser.bookings.report, but the host-side framing and the required device_id/order_id make the resource scope clear.

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?

It states the trigger context (report an advert already placed on your screen) and clarifies that venues do not book adverts, which is useful framing. However, it names no alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, so routing between this and advertiser.bookings.report is left to inference.

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