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

Annotations indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive. The description goes further by disclosing that it is free, stores only bounded triage metadata, and does not copy prompts, media URLs, billing data, or account identity. This is rich behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by cost and privacy details. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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 report submission tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what can be reported, target ownership/visibility, cost, and data handling. It does not describe the response or confirmation behavior, but this is acceptable given the simplicity of the operation and lack of output schema.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify target_type semantics by specifying that actors must be visible and auditions must be owned by the user, which gives meaning to target_id and target_type. However, it does not explain the reason enum values or the details field, so parameter understanding is only partially addressed.

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 action ('Report') and the specific resources: a visible actor or an audition owned by the authenticated user. It also introduces important scope constraints (visibility and ownership) that distinguish this tool from any sibling, and no other reporting tools exist.

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?

The description provides clear context for when to use the tool: to report a visible actor or an audition the user owns. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but since there are no sibling reporting tools, this is sufficient. The ownership/visibility condition effectively guides usage.

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