check_pii

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool detects specific PII types and returns a redacted version, implying no side effects. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or mention any authorization or rate limits.

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 with a clear structure: a brief explanation, a list of detected PII, and a structured Args/Returns section. It is front-loaded and every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more streamlined.

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 simple single-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers input purpose, output structure (found_pii, redacted_text, etc.), and usage context. It is complete enough for agent invocation.

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 only parameter 'text' is described as 'Der zu prüfende Text' in the description, providing meaning beyond the schema which only has a title and type. The description adds context that the text is to be scanned for PII, which aids correct usage.

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 scans text for PII, lists specific data types (emails, phone numbers, SSNs, etc.), and explains its output. It distinguishes itself from siblings like apply_guardrails by focusing on PII detection before sending to external services.

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 explicitly tells when to use the tool: 'Nutze dieses Tool BEVOR du Text an externe Services sendest.' It does not specify when not to use or mention alternatives, but the directive is clear and actionable.

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