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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the core behavior: matched words are replaced with the literal token [REDACTED]. However it omits case sensitivity, whether partial/overlapping matches count, and what happens when the words list is empty, all of which matter for a text-transformation tool.

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 short sentences, behavior stated first and input format second, with zero filler. Every clause carries actionable information.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description must stand alone, and it mostly does for the happy path. It remains incomplete about which of the three parameters is required (the schema marks none required), how 'text' and 'input' differ, and whether matching is case-insensitive.

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 nominally 100%, but the schema descriptions are tautological ('Text to process', 'Words to process'), so the description is doing real work by clarifying the words parameter accepts 'a words array (or comma list)'. It does not resolve the ambiguity between the duplicate 'text' and 'input' parameters, and never mentions 'input'.

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 specific verb and effect: 'Replace specified words in text with [REDACTED]', which is concrete and distinguishes it from format-only siblings like x402-mask or x402-normalize. It stops short of naming a sibling it must not be confused with (e.g. mask-email, obfuscate-email), so 4 rather than 5.

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?

'Provide text and a words array (or comma list) to hide' tells the agent what input to supply, which is implied usage rather than selection guidance. There is no statement of when to prefer this over sibling masking/redaction tools, nor any exclusion or prerequisite.

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