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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: this is the same path as the website's report button, a human will review the report afterward, and the user should be asked beforehand. This clarifies consequences without contradicting the readOnlyHint=false or destructiveHint=false 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?

Four short sentences, each earning its place: purpose first, then parameter source, then behavior and user confirmation. No fluff, no repetition of schema fields.

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 low-complexity tool with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what the tool does, which entries it applies to, where the key parameter comes from, what happens after the report, and the required user confirmation.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that post_id comes from markt_ansehen, which is helpful for correctly selecting that parameter. The mentioned reasons also map naturally to the grund enum values.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Meldet einen fremden Eintrag der Moderation' — reporting a foreign entry for moderation. It lists concrete reasons (Spam, Betrug, Beleidigungen, unangemessene Inhalte) and clearly distinguishes this from related actions like managing one's own 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?

The description clearly states when to use the tool: to report a foreign entry, and even tells the agent where to obtain the post_id ('Die post_id kommt aus markt_ansehen'). It also instructs to ask the user for confirmation before reporting. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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