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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It covers the default and configurable checks, but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, what the output format is, or how errors are handled. The term 'checks' suggests non-mutating, but this is implicit.

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?

The description is concise, just two sentences, and front-loads the specific action. Every clause adds useful information about the tool's behavior, with no redundant 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?

Given the tool's simplicity and lack of annotations/output schema, the description adequately explains how to configure checks but leaves out expected return values and fails to mention the role of the 'text' parameter. It is minimally complete but has clear gaps.

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?

The description adds meaningful context for the 'checks' parameter by listing valid options and the default. However, it provides no explanation for the required 'text' parameter, and with 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate for both parameters but only does so partially.

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 clearly states it runs PII, safety, and/or hallucination checks in one call, using the specific verb 'Run' and resource 'checks'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that handle individual checks by emphasizing the combined, single-call nature.

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?

It explains the default check combination and how to specify a custom set via the checks parameter, which implies when to use this tool (when combining multiple check types). However, it does not explicitly contrast this with using the individual sibling tools for single checks.

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