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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that redaction is 'inline' but does not explain whether the operation mutates the input, is reversible, requires special permissions, or what the output format is. This is a significant gap for a potentially destructive operation.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The core capability is front-loaded, and the prerequisite is placed after the primary purpose, making it easy to scan.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves important context unstated, such as return value, side effects, and how this differs from anonymize_document. It is adequate for a basic understanding but not complete enough for an agent to invoke confidently in all relevant situations.

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%, so the description must compensate for the bare input schema. It hints that entity_types refers to PII categories and text covers contracts/emails/transcripts, but it does not list valid entity types, format expectations, or constraints. The added meaning is minimal.

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 operation as 'inline redaction' of text, emails, or transcripts by entity type, which clearly conveys what the tool does. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling anonymize_document, but the specific focus on PII entity types provides reasonable clarity.

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 names concrete input contexts (contract text, emails, transcripts) and states a prerequisite ('Requires tools.text'), which implies where the tool fits. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this over anonymize_document or 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.