pii_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it discloses that the tool is read-only, that it counts every record including superseded ones, and that superseded_with_pii indicates that count. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond a simple 'PII report' label.

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 core purpose, followed by the critical counting nuance and the pairing with forget_pii. Every sentence earns its place with 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 zero-parameter read-only report tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what is reported, the scope of counting, a key output field, and how to act on the results. An agent has enough to select and invoke it correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics burden. The description still adds value by mentioning the superseded_with_pii output field, which helps the agent understand what the report contains.

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 that the tool reports what PII the store holds, grouped by type, and frames it as a data-minimization/audit view. It is specific about scope and includes the key detail that superseded records are counted, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling audit/report tools like erasure_report or compliance_report.

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 gives clear context: use this as a read-only audit view and pair it with forget_pii to act on the data. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative report tools, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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