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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses where the report goes (freehire moderators, human review) and, importantly, what it does NOT do (does not hide the job, does not change the user's own board), which is the non-obvious side-effect an agent needs. It also surfaces a real constraint — one open report per job per user — that explains the idempotentHint=false annotation without contradicting it.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: purpose first, then routing to moderators, then the effect it does not have, then the consent gate and duplicate rule. Front-loaded and free of repetition of the name or 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?

For a non-destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers audience, review process, side effects, consent, and the one-open-report limit — enough to call it correctly. It does not say what the call returns (report id, status) or whether a report can be withdrawn, which are the remaining gaps.

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% and the reason enum already carries per-value explanations, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's list of reportable conditions loosely mirrors the enum but adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond it; 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 gives a specific verb+resource ("File a report on a vacancy") and enumerates the qualifying conditions (fake, spam, scam, irrelevant, never answers). It is not, however, differentiated from the sibling report_problem, so an agent must infer which reporting tool handles a broken platform feature versus a bad vacancy.

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 a clear gate: only report when the user asks, or after disclosing what will be sent and getting agreement — a genuinely useful when-to-use rule. It stops short of naming the alternative tool (report_problem) for non-job issues, so the routing decision against siblings is left partly implicit.

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