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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions the pay-per-use nature (0.0022 USDC on Base) which is a helpful operational constraint, and the 'flag' act implies a binary or categorical output. However, it does not disclose what 'unsafe' includes, or the exact return format. This is acceptable but not detailed.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the purpose in the first phrase, then adds usage context and cost. One minor redundancy is 'input=text' which restates the schema, but overall no unnecessary content.

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 tool is simple with one parameter fully defined, but there is no output schema and the description does not explain what the tool returns after 'flagging' (e.g., boolean, category, confidence score). Since the output is ambiguous, an agent might not know how to interpret the call result. The description is adequate for a minimal tool but leaves this gap.

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 already provides 100% coverage for the single 'input' parameter, with a Spanish description ('texto a revisar'). The description adds 'input=text', which merely repeats the schema's type and adds no additional meaning like length limits or language expectations.

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 ('flag') and resource ('unsafe text'), and adds a usage context ('For agents filtering inputs'). This clearly differentiates 'moderate' from siblings like sentiment, classify-topic, or fact-check, which focus on other types of analysis.

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 phrase 'For agents filtering inputs' explicitly identifies the intended usage scenario. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is enough to guide an agent selecting this tool for input filtering rather than other content-analysis tools.

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