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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions redaction but does not explain whether it mutates input, what the output structure is, or any security implications, leaving significant gaps.

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 extremely concise with no filler words, making it quick to parse. However, it is under-specified, trading important context for brevity, which is not ideal for the tool's complexity.

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?

There is no output schema or annotations, so the description must provide complete context. It only covers the core function, missing PII categories, redaction behavior, return value details, and any usage nuance, making it insufficient for an agent.

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 schema only describes 'text' while 'redact' lacks a description. The description's 'optional redact' adds minimal nuance beyond the schema's default, but does not clarify how redaction affects the output or how text should be formatted. Since schema coverage is only 50%, the description should compensate but doesn't.

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 states the tool detects PII and optionally redacts it, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like extract_emails or extract_phones by covering PII broadly, but lacks detail on what PII types are included.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It is a bare statement of function with no usage context.

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