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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes the shape of the payload (category, count, original-retained flag), which is genuinely useful given there is no output schema. It omits behavior on missing documents, empty logs, or how this log relates to a redaction run.

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 well-packed sentence with the key output detail front-loaded and no filler. The interrogative phrasing is slightly less scannable than an imperative but costs little.

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 read-only two-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the description is adequate but thin: it never clarifies the relationship to the redaction policy/run tools, nor whether the log is per-document history or a single aggregate. With no output schema, more detail on the returned structure would have helped.

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%, and document_id is already documented as coming from list_knowledge_documents. The description only says 'one document', adding nothing about app_id or scope resolution. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 names a specific resource and result set: redactions in one document, broken down by category and count, plus whether the original was retained. That is far more specific than a tautology. It stops short of 5 because the verb is implicit (phrased as a question rather than 'Retrieve the redaction log for...') and it distinguishes nothing from nearby siblings like get_knowledge_redaction_run or get_knowledge_redaction_policy.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. With five redaction-related siblings (apply_knowledge_redaction, revert_knowledge_redaction, get_knowledge_redaction_run, get_knowledge_redaction_policy, scan_knowledge_for_sensitive_data), the agent gets no signal about which one answers which question.

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