Scan text for personal data and secrets

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, but the description adds materially new behavior: no network calls, no files written, and that matches are never echoed back — only categories, counts and a clean flag. That data-handling guarantee is exactly what an agent needs before passing sensitive text through a scanning tool and is not derivable from the annotations.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the detection scope, then usage, then safety/return semantics. No filler or restatement of the title, and the parenthetical qualifiers are load-bearing rather than decorative.

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 two-parameter, non-destructive scanner with an output schema and full parameter documentation, the description covers everything an agent needs: what is detected, when to call it, what side effects do not occur, and what shape of answer to expect. Nothing material 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 100%, with both `text` (size limit) and `response_format` (enum meanings) fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format guidance beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies; nothing is lost, but nothing is added either.

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 ("Detect") plus the exact resource classes: Aadhaar, PAN, payment cards, emails, UPI IDs, Indian mobiles, API/private keys. Validation methods (Verhoeff, Luhn) further pin down what counts as a match, so an agent can distinguish this from check_output or validate_eval_config without opening the schema.

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?

"Use before sending prompts or eval examples to a provider" gives an explicit trigger, and "modelfinder_create_eval_config already runs this on its examples" names the sibling that duplicates the behavior, telling the agent when this call is redundant. Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are present.

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