moderate_content

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It goes well beyond the minimum by disclosing the exact price, payment mechanism (x402, USDC on Base), that all decisions are priced identically to prevent rent-seeking, that billing is transparent, and that affiliate_id never changes behavior. This is exceptional transparency.

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 front-loaded with purpose, then covers pricing, returns, and optional parameters. It is slightly redundant on pricing (mentioned three times: upfront, in pricing fairness, and in the disclosure sentence), but each sentence adds distinct value. It is well-structured and not bloated.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers when to use, what it returns, how policy works, pricing details, and the affiliate_id behavior. There is no ambiguity about the tool's operation or cost. It fully compensates for the lack of structured metadata.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains policy (optional, sets the standard, otherwise conservative default) and affiliate_id (tags for future referral program, never changes price/behavior). The content parameter is implicitly clear from the description's use of 'CONTENT' and the usage guidance. Adding allowed policy values would push this to a 5.

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: 'Decide whether CONTENT is safe to publish, post, or surface.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling verification, detection, and redaction tools. It also includes the return categories (publish/review/block), reinforcing its unique role.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use before an agent sends or publishes generated content.' It also explains the optional policy parameter and default behavior. However, it does not mention when not to use it or explicitly name alternatives among siblings, so it falls 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.