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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is carried. The description adds the standards applied and a 'RETURNS: 脱敏后文本' line, but says nothing about whether original text is preserved, how structure/offsets are handled, whether redaction is masked or removed, or how sensitive/quasi-identifiers alter behavior. Useful but thin beyond the 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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then USE WHEN, ALIASES and RETURNS in clearly labeled segments; no sentence is wasted on restating annotations. The ALIASES block is padding for an agent, but it is short and supports lookup by Chinese/English keywords.

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 simple 3-parameter read-only tool with annotations covering safety and an explicit RETURNS line, most essentials are present. What is missing is any explanation of the two optional policy parameters and of the output shape (masked vs. removed vs. placeholder), which is the main thing an agent must anticipate when calling it.

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 nominally 100%, which sets the baseline at 3, but the schema descriptions are bare labels (待脱敏文本 / 敏感字段 / 准标识符字段). The description never mentions the optional 'sensitive' or 'quasi_identifiers' parameters, so it adds no meaning about expected formats, defaults, or how supplying them changes the redaction policy.

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 specific verb and resource ('De-identify text') and scopes it with the standards and identifier classes covered (HIPAA 18, China national ID, names/dates/phone/MRN). The scope makes it unmistakable what the tool does, though no sibling is named or excluded (the sibling catalog contains no close de-identification alternative, so there is little to differentiate against).

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 'USE WHEN' clause gives a concrete trigger: patient text that must be de-identified before sharing, with example entity types. It does not state when NOT to use it, nor point to any alternative for partial redaction or non-PHI anonymization, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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