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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: a rate limit of 20 per day and the constraint that only approved apps are reportable. That rate limit is exactly the kind of operational detail annotations cannot convey; it doesn't discuss reversibility or the effect on the app, so not a 5.

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?

A single compact sentence carries the action, the optionality and size of details, the usage boundary, and the rate limit, with the core action front-loaded. Nothing is padded.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers scope, rate limit, and usage boundary, which is close to everything an agent needs. It could be marginally richer about what happens after a report, but no structured field is left unexplained.

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%, so the schema already documents slug, reason, api_key, and details. The description repeats the enum values and the 1000-character cap that the schema already states, adding essentially no new parameter semantics beyond the structured fields.

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 (Report) and resource (an approved app), and enumerates the reportable reasons, so the action is unambiguous. It also scopes the target to 'approved' apps, which implicitly separates it from submission/creation siblings, but it names no sibling explicitly.

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 gives a clear positive condition ('rule violations') and an explicit exclusion ('not a low score'), which steers the agent away from misuse. It stops short of naming the alternative tool (e.g. write_review) for low-score feedback, so it's strong but not fully closed-loop.

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