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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that the request is removed from the user's inbox, that block additionally prevents the candidate from choosing the user, that the candidate is never notified, and that auth plus a verified referrer account are required. The silent-notification and inbox-removal consequences are exactly the kind of irreversible side effects an agent needs before firing a destructiveHint=true call.

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?

Information-dense with no filler: preconditions lead, then the action and its effects, then the scope limit and the confirm-first rule. The confirmation requirement is a safety-critical instruction buried in the final clause, and the block consequence is folded into a semicolon chain, which slightly hurts scanability.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers everything else a four-parameter mutation needs: auth requirements, the destructive consequences, the silent-notification behavior, and the valid input source. Nothing essential to a correct first invocation is missing.

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, but the description adds real meaning for 'block' by framing it as the candidate being unable to choose the user, complementing the schema's wording about the referrer card and other open requests disappearing. The reason enum is restated rather than expanded, and note/request_id are left entirely to the schema, so it does not fully compensate for zero description-level coverage of those two.

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?

Uses a specific verb (reports) against a specific resource (a referral request) and immediately names the four reason categories and the two effects (removal from inbox, optional blocking). An agent can distinguish this from decline_referral_request or release_referral_request without opening the schema, because the description ties it to reporting to the techjobs.vn team.

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?

Gives prerequisites (sign-in, verified referrer account) and a clear scope restriction: 'Only for requests list_referrer_requests shows,' plus an explicit procedural instruction to ask the user to confirm first. It stops short of naming the adjacent sibling (decline_referral_request) and stating when to decline instead of report, which is the one remaining ambiguity for an agent picking among referral-request actions.

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