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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. It adds the key behavioral trait: it processes locally without sending content to a model, which is a meaningful privacy benefit and goes beyond the annotations. It also mentions pricing but lacks details like potential rate limits or what happens to edge cases (unsupported formats). However, given annotations cover safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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 a single, front-loaded paragraph with no filler. It states purpose, usage context, and pricing in three sentences. Every sentence adds value, and the key constraint (no model send) is placed early. Highly efficient.

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 an output schema and that annotations cover safety, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to decide when to call it. It covers the main use case and the local processing guarantee. It doesn't detail return format or error cases, but the output schema likely covers return details. A small gap is the lack of example usage, but it's adequate.

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 0% and no parameter details are in the description. The description mentions formats (text, JSON, source code) but doesn't map to the 'format' parameter or explain 'redactionStyle' options. With zero coverage, the description should compensate, so this is a gap. Also, 'text' parameter is required but not described beyond its type. However, the enum values are probably self-explanatory to an agent, so a baseline 3 is somewhat generous.

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's purpose: detecting and redacting personal data and credentials from various formats. It uses a specific verb (detect/redact) and resource (personal data, credentials). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'data_cleaner' or 'document_validator' – though the PII focus is implied by the name.

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 use case: 'Use before sharing logs, documents, tickets, or code that may contain personal data or secrets.' This gives the agent a clear trigger for when to use it, but it doesn't mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when NOT to use it).

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