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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that no key is needed, that reports are reviewed by a person, and that a post reported by several parties is hidden meanwhile. It still omits other behavioral details such as whether reports can be withdrawn, what the response looks like, or any limits on reporting.

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, both front-loaded and free of filler. The violation categories are essential, and the follow-up sentence adds auth and consequence information without padding.

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 simple report tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, auth, review outcome, and the immediate side effect of multiple reports. It could say slightly more about the optional details field or confirmation behavior, but it is largely complete.

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 67%, so the schema already documents details and post_id, and the reason enum is fully described in the schema. The description restates the same reason categories in prose but adds no format or syntax guidance beyond that.

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 ('Flag') and resource ('a post'), then enumerates the exact categories of violation. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like get_post or create_post.

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 the category list: use this tool when a post violates one of those categories. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it, what to do instead for non-violations, or how it relates to sibling tools such as get_post or search.

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