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

Annotations already establish the safety profile (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description goes beyond them by enumerating what the call returns — findings, textoMascarado, naoMedido residue, and a recommendation — plus the LGPD/ATRiAN validation framing. It still omits operational details like cost, limits, or whether masking is destructive to the input.

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 compact, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core action leads and the return contract follows. It loses a point only because the Portuguese jargon (textoMascarado, naoMedido, ATRiAN) is unexplained and slightly obscures meaning for an outside reader.

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 output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by listing the four outputs. Combined with a fully documented input schema and safety annotations, it is nearly complete, missing only an explanation of what the ethics validation entails and any operational constraints.

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 100%, so both parameters (text, mask) are already documented in the schema, establishing a baseline of 3. The description hints at masking through the 'textoMascarado' output but adds no syntax, defaults, or interaction detail beyond the schema.

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 names a specific verb (inspect) and resource (LGPD PII) and flags its scope as 'full', which distinguishes it implicitly from the lighter siblings guard_scan_pii and guard_check_safe. However, it never names those siblings, so the agent must infer the difference from the adjective 'full' alone.

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 is only implied: 'Full ... inspection' suggests this is the comprehensive option versus the narrower scan/check siblings, but no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative is stated. The agent can guess from the word 'full' but gets no hard routing rule.

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