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

Beyond the read-only and idempotent annotations, the description adds crucial context including return values (risk assessment, violations, recommendations) and a prerequisite (authentication). This enriches the agent's understanding of the tool's behavior without contradicting annotations.

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 concise (two sentences) and front-loaded, stating the primary action and deliverables first. The second sentence adds only one essential detail (authentication). No redundant or irrelevant 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?

Given the presence of a complete output schema, well-documented parameters, and annotations covering safety, the description provides sufficient additional context: its purpose, usage timing, and authentication requirement. It is complete for an agent to decide when and how to invoke the tool.

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 schema descriptions already cover 100% of parameters, including the character limit for 'text' and the mode options for 'guardrail_mode'. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate per the rubric.

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 tool evaluates a prompt or text against guardrail policies, with a specific purpose ('before sending it to an AI provider'). It also lists the outputs ('risk assessment, violations found, and recommendations'), distinguishing it from generic check tools in the sibling list.

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 provides a clear usage context: use this tool before sending content to an AI provider. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context strongly implies when it should be used, which qualifies as clear guidance without explicit alternatives.

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