Check content with all Altirs guardrails

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.), the description discloses the output structure (per-engine verdicts, safe boolean, blocked flag, score, violations), the behavior that hallucination is skipped without source context, and the imperative to not act when blocked. This adds meaningful behavioral context not captured in 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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, then gives usage, engine details, return values, and a warning. Every sentence contributes; there is no fluff. It is somewhat long but justified given the tool's composite nature and the need to explain engine behavior and return format.

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 composite tool with no output schema, the description fully explains the return values and the skip behavior for hallucination. It covers all necessary details for an agent to invoke it correctly and interpret results, including the blocked-action warning. The provided annotations and schema handle the rest.

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 already documents both parameters (text and engines) with 100% coverage. The description adds value by defining 'untrusted content' with examples and explaining what each engine does, including why hallucination is skipped. This goes beyond the schema but does not add syntax-level detail, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 specific action ('Run every Altirs guardrail engine on a piece of text') and the resource (text), and differentiates itself from sibling tools by being the combined gate. It also explicitly notes that hallucination is skipped and routes to check_hallucination, distinguishing it from the individual engines.

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?

It explicitly positions the tool as the default safety gate before acting on untrusted content, lists concrete use cases (user messages, tool outputs, scraped web content, etc.), and names the alternative for hallucination (check_hallucination). This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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