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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: 'Nothing is persisted and nothing is filtered', 'records no decision and leaves no dashboard timeline trace'. This clearly communicates the safe, side-effect-free nature of the tool and exceeds minimal expectations.

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 at two sentences, with the purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. Every phrase adds value, from explaining the preview capabilities to detailing the non-persistent, non-filtering behavior. No wasted words.

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?

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides a solid high-level understanding of inputs (sample event) and outputs (tagging, redaction, severity escalation). However, it omits any explanation of the optional jurisdiction parameter, leaving a gap for users who need to customize by region.

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 only 50%, and the description adds no parameter-level information. The term 'sample event' appears but is not explicitly linked to the 'sample_event' parameter, and the 'jurisdiction' parameter is not mentioned at all. The description does not compensate for the schema's gaps.

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 the tool performs a dry-run of PII/threat detection on a sample event, distinguishing it from sibling classification tools by emphasizing its rehearsal nature. The verb 'dry-run' and resource 'VITNA's PII / threat detection' are specific, and the purpose is unambiguous.

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 says to use it 'before you send real data' and clarifies it is 'not an enforced gate', implying it should not be used when actual enforcement or persistence is needed. It provides a clear context for use but does not explicitly name alternative tools.

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