check_pii

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable context: sampling N rows per column (default 5000), returns redacted examples, never raw values, and output size is small. It does not explain the 'strict' parameter or how 'columns' filters, but the key safety behavior (redaction) is disclosed.

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 four concise sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and followed by bullet-like pattern list and key behavioral notes. Every sentence adds value, with no repetition of the input schema or fluff.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema that likely describes return values. The description covers the core behavior (PII detection, sampling, redaction, output size) but omits explanations for 'strict' and 'columns.' While output schema reduces the need to describe return format, the missing parameter semantics leave the description incomplete for safe and correct usage.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'sample' parameter (default 5000) and indirectly hints at 'columns' through 'column-name heuristics,' but it does not clarify 'strict' or 'source_id.' The addition is helpful but incomplete for a 4-parameter tool with no schema descriptions.

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 opens with 'Detect PII via regex + column-name heuristics,' using a specific verb and resource that clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_quality or detect_pattern. It further lists concrete patterns (email, phone, SSN, credit-card, etc.), making the purpose unmistakable.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when you need to check a dataset for PII. It provides context by listing the types of PII and the sampling behavior, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. This is clear context without formal 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.