Dietary Export Sanitised Public Review Dossier

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is already established. The description adds a transformation context (internal to sanitised-public) and mentions redaction records, which is useful. However, it does not disclose behavior such as whether it requires confidentiality annotations, how redaction decisions are made, or whether the source dossier remains unchanged beyond what annotations imply.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It conveys the core action and output in under 15 words, placing no burden on the reader to parse extraneous 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?

This tool has a large and complex schema with a nested union of five different dossier types, yet the description is only one line. It lacks essential context about which dossier variants are accepted, what constitutes 'sanitised-public' versus 'internal review', and what the redaction records signify. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the operational prerequisites and transformation semantics are substantially under-specified.

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 schema has zero parameter descriptions, so the description carries full responsibility for explaining the request/dossier parameter. It offers only the vague hint 'from an internal review dossier' and does not describe which of the many accepted VersionPinned*ReviewDossier types are valid, how to structure the request, or what 'internal review dossier' means in terms of the schema's BundleProfile.

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 uses a specific verb 'derive' and identifies both the input ('internal review dossier') and output ('sanitised-public dossier with redaction records'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling export tools that produce version-pinned or interpretation-bundle dossiers, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are there exclusions or prerequisites. The phrase 'from an internal review dossier' implies the input type but does not state when a sanitised-public output is needed or how this differs from other export tools.

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