validate_no_phi

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the purpose. It does not disclose return behavior (e.g., boolean, error), side effects (read-only? destructive?), or what constitutes 'detected' (string matching? ML model?). This lacks essential behavioral details for safe invocation.

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 sentence that efficiently states the core purpose. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the verb 'Validate'. However, it misses opportunities to include critical invocation context without becoming verbose.

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?

Given the simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but leaves gaps: no mention of return type, error cases, or where this fits in a workflow. For a validation tool, this is incomplete for an agent to use confidently.

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%: the single parameter 'text' has a clear description ('Plain text to inspect.'). The tool description adds no further meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies. No improvement or degradation.

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 action ('validate') and the condition ('text has no detected PHI-like identifiers'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings (audit_deidentification, redact_phi, scan_phi) by focusing on validation rather than auditing, redaction, or scanning.

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 vs alternatives. For example, it doesn't specify whether this should be called before redaction or scanning, or what the expected input/output context is. The description only states what it does, not when or why to choose it.

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