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

Annotations already cover safety and determinism (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower, but the description adds real context: results are deterministic, coverage is explicitly INCOMPLETE, and it is 'never a score'. It stops short of describing the shape of the findings returned, which matters since there is no output schema.

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?

Front-loads the most consequential caveat ('semantic coverage is INCOMPLETE. Never a score') before any detail. The detection list is dense and every clause carries information, including the useful parenthetical that emails/URLs/phones block anonymisation.

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 two-parameter, closed-world, read-only tool with no output schema, the behavioral picture is essentially complete — what it finds, what it misses, and where it sits in the workflow. The one gap is that neither parameter, and the presence of directory context, is explained anywhere.

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 the description never mentions either parameter. 'brief' is inferable from the name, but 'directory_context' (boolean, default true) is opaque — the agent cannot tell what directory is consulted or what toggling it changes.

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?

States a precise verb and scope ('deterministic checks only') and then enumerates the concrete artifacts it detects — emails, URLs, phone numbers, budget/timeline, placeholders, title line, labelled sections. It also explicitly marks the boundary against semantic judging ('does not judge meaning'). An agent can distinguish this from get_judge_prompt and aggregate_verdicts without opening any schema.

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?

Gives an explicit usage sequence: 'Use it as a quick pre-flight, then judge with get_judge_prompt and aggregate_verdicts', naming the alternatives and their order. It also states a when-not condition by listing what passes straight through (company/person names, vague problem, unmeasurable goal).

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