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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses that redaction truly deletes text, that 'clean' strips metadata by default, and that scanned PDFs have no text to find. It does not mention required permissions or file-size limits, but the destructive semantics are clearly surfaced.

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-loads the purpose and the key differentiator, then lists parameters compactly, ending with the scan edge case. Every sentence carries information; it is dense but not padded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. The description covers purpose, all parameters with defaults, the OCR precondition, and the metadata-cleaning side effect — nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does so thoroughly — every one of the five parameters (file_url, kinds, words, areas, clean) is explained with meaning, defaults, and for kinds the concrete enum values (passport, snils, inn, phone, email, card, account). The areas format is even illustrated with an example object.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Скрывает персональные данные в PDF') and goes further by explaining the mechanism — actually removes text rather than painting over it. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like find_personal_data (which only locates) and ocr_pdf (which extracts text).

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?

Explicitly states that without 'areas' the tool searches on its own, points to find_personal_data as a source of areas, and instructs the agent to run ocr_pdf first for scans. Clear contextual guidance, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with find_personal_data's non-destructive role.

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