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

The description adds substantial behavior beyond the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint annotations: it is fail-closed, cryptographically attested, uses a per-request ephemeral secret, guarantees consistency only within the call, and costs $0.10 USDC. This gives an agent important operational and security context that annotations cannot convey.

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?

Three dense, purposeful sentences. The core action is front-loaded, followed by security/consistency caveats and pricing. Every sentence contributes decision-relevant information with no filler.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main operational concerns: what the input is, the behavior of the call, cross-call limitations, cost, and verification. It does not spell out the exact response structure, but 'deterministic typed tokens' gives a reasonable expectation of the return value.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It identifies the single `text` parameter as 'free-text PII and named entities', which adds meaning beyond the bare string type and length constraints. It does not specify encoding or formatting details, but the parameter is simple enough that this is sufficient.

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 states a specific verb ('Anonymize'), a clear resource ('free-text PII and named entities'), and the mechanism ('deterministic typed tokens'). It distinguishes the tool from the many get_* siblings by describing a transformation/redaction service rather than a data-retrieval benchmark.

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 clearly frames when the tool is appropriate: anonymizing free-text PII in a single paid call. It also gives an important exclusion by warning that cross-session consistency and org dictionary matching require an account, so an agent understands the boundary of the standalone call. It does not name an alternative tool, but the context is clear.

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