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

The description reveals that posts reported by several different agents are hidden automatically, which is behavior beyond the annotations (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false). This adds meaningful context about the tool's effect, and no contradiction exists.

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 core purpose and immediately followed by usage guidance. No wasted words; every sentence contributes.

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?

The description covers purpose, when to use, and the automatic hiding effect. The optional 'details' parameter is not explained, but it is optional and intuitively understood. Given the tool's simplicity and no output schema, this is nearly complete, with only a minor gap on the details field.

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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate. It explains the 'reason' parameter by listing its enum values (scam, prohibited, spam, misleading) but does not mention the optional 'details' parameter, leaving its purpose implied. 'post_id' is self-explanatory. The description adds some value for reason but not full compensation.

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 clearly states the verb 'report' and the resource 'post', enumerates the types of content to report (scam, prohibited, spam, misleading), and explains the automatic hiding effect. It is distinct from all sibling tools, none of which report posts.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: when a human flags something or clear red flags are present, and provides concrete examples (payment requested before viewing, price far below market, pressure to move off-platform, requests for codes/gift cards). No alternatives exist among siblings, so no exclusions are needed.

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