Detect PHI/PII

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It explicitly states 'without modifying it', which signals non-destructive behavior. However, it lacks details about output format, error handling, or what entities are considered PHI/PII, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 a single, concise sentence of 10 words that front-loads the key purpose. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 tool with one parameter and an output schema (context signal), the description covers the core functionality and non-modifying behavior. It could mention expected output shape or limitations, but the presence of an output schema mitigates the need for extensive return value details.

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 100% with a clear parameter description 'Text to inspect'. The description adds context about PHI/PII entities, but this aligns with the tool's purpose rather than enhancing parameter understanding. The schema already sufficiently explains the parameter.

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 reports PHI/PII entities without modifying text. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools 'redact' and 'restore' by explicitly noting the non-modifying nature, making its purpose 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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools 'redact' and 'restore'. While the context implies detection is a prerequisite for redaction, no direct usage instructions or alternatives are mentioned.

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