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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds that it masks (mutates the returned text) rather than only reporting, which is useful, but it does not say whether the original text is stored, what the response contains, or why a POST endpoint is classified read-only.

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?

Two tight sentences with the capability front-loaded and the endpoint appended as a parenthetical. Minor waste in restating the title as a lead-in label, but nothing obstructive.

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-required-parameter tool with no output schema, the description should at least hint at the return shape (masked text, list of findings, placeholders) and the behavior when redaction is disabled. Those gaps remain, though the core purpose and secret coverage are adequately conveyed.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3 and the schema already carries both parameters with an example secret string. The description conveys that masking is a core behavior tied to the `redact` flag, but it never explains what `redact=false` yields (detection-only findings?) or how the two modes differ.

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 concrete verb pair ("Detect and mask") and concrete resources (API keys, JWTs, private keys) across concrete surfaces (logs, diffs, prompts), plus the endpoint. It is clear what the tool does, but it never names or distinguishes itself from adjacent siblings like tinplate_pii_redactor or tinplate_prompt_guard.

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?

Usage context is implied by "in logs, diffs, and prompts" and by the endpoint path, giving a rough sense of when to reach for it. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing to an alternative tool for overlapping redaction needs.

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