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

Annotations already establish this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by disclosing the return payload shape (per-document state, detected findings, suggested replacement, confidence, applied changes), which matters because no output schema exists. It still omits scope limits, whether it returns all documents or a paged subset, and how pending vs applied states are represented.

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 compact sentence with no filler, and the core concept (sensitive-data scan results) leads. The nested colon-and-parenthetical structure makes it slightly awkward to parse, but nothing is redundant.

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 getter with fully documented parameters and annotations covering the safety profile, the main remaining burden is describing the response, and the description only sketches it in a compressed clause without covering pagination, state enumeration, or empty/failed-run behavior. Adequate but with clear gaps against what an agent needs to interpret results.

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% and every parameter is documented inline, including provenance hints for run_id and notebook_id. The description contributes nothing beyond the schema for these three parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 identifies the domain (a sensitive-data scan) and enumerates the returned content (per-document state, findings with category/text/replacement/confidence, and applied changes). But it is a noun-phrase fragment rather than a verb+resource statement, so it never says explicitly that this retrieves the results of a specific redaction run, and it does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings like scan_knowledge_for_sensitive_data or get_knowledge_redaction_log.

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 in the description. The link to scan_knowledge_for_sensitive_data appears only in the run_id schema field, not in the description, so an agent relying on the description alone gets no workflow context.

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