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

The description adds meaningful behavioral details beyond the annotations: it stores a report, returns a specific status ('received'), does not hide/delete/adjudicate the target, requires an agent bearer token, and is non-idempotent (repeating creates another report). These details align with annotations (idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false) without contradicting them.

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?

The description is dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, auth requirement, availability, behavior, alternative, idempotency warning, and privacy note. It is front-loaded with the core action and avoids redundancy with the schema.

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 tool with 3 parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers the essential operational context: what it stores, the returned id/status, the non-adjudication caveat, the alternative path, and the duplicate/privacy warnings. An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly.

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% for all three parameters, so the schema already documents each parameter thoroughly. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond general guidance to avoid sensitive personal details, which echoes the reason parameter's schema description. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Submit an abuse report about an existing record for operator review.' It clearly distinguishes itself from task_action by naming the alternative and the condition to use it. An agent can immediately understand what this tool does and how it differs from siblings.

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 explicitly states when to use an alternative ('Use task_action verifications with verdict=dispute for evidence-based result disagreement'), provides context on availability when posting is restricted, and warns against duplicates and sensitive data. This gives clear selection and usage direction beyond just describing the action.

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