marketplace_report_tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the key fact that reports are reviewed by the trust & safety team, implying an asynchronous review process. This goes beyond the simple action and provides useful context, though it does not fully detail side effects or reversibility.

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, both concise and directly informative. The first sentence states the action and subject, the second adds the review process. There is no redundancy or irrelevant content; every word earns its place.

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?

The description adequately covers the purpose and the review process, which is sufficient for a relatively simple reporting tool. It does not specify the output or confirmation, but given the tool's straightforward nature and the schema's completeness, the description is sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema; it only gives overall context. The schema already provides clear descriptions for toolId, evidence, severity, etc., so the description does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 a tool') and the specific context ('for malicious behavior, scams, or violations'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like marketplace_rate_tool (rate) and marketplace_open_dispute (dispute). It is specific and unambiguous.

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 defines when to use this tool: when a tool exhibits malicious behavior, scams, or violations. It mentions that reports are reviewed by the trust & safety team, giving clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when NOT to use it, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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