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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by explaining retention behavior: the original is already gone under ephemeral retention, the redacted output is kept for 14 days by default and then deleted, and the original file is never modified. It also discloses that output is always PDF even for image inputs. This gives the agent important behavioral context beyond readOnlyHint and destructiveHint.

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 compact and front-loaded with the action and object. Every sentence earns its place: purpose, precondition, retention, output format, and non-modification of the original. There is no filler or repetition.

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 tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers everything needed to call it correctly: source of the id, required status, retention window, output_path default, output format, and safety about the original file. No critical gap remains.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents document_id and output_path. The description adds no new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Download the finished redacted PDF for one document.' It also tells the agent where the document id comes from (redact_pdf or get_job_status), which clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools that create or check redaction jobs.

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 explicitly states the precondition: 'Only works once that document reports status "redacted".' It also points to redact_pdf or get_job_status as the source for the document id. It does not explicitly name alternatives or tell the agent what to do when the status is not redacted, but the usage context is clear enough.

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

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already communicates that this is a safe read operation. The description adds non-obvious context about account plan quota and credit packs, and explains that 'out of pages' failures are permanent quota problems rather than transient errors. This is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations, though it does not describe the exact return payload.

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 concisely written and front-loads the core purpose before the recommended usage timing. The second paragraph about redaction billing and quota errors is somewhat tangential to what this tool itself does, but it is still relevant context and does not make the description bloated.

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 tool's simplicity, zero parameters, and no output schema, the description covers the essential what, when, and error-handling context. It does not enumerate the specific fields returned in the account status response, but the stated purpose ('see which account it belongs to') provides enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly for its intended use.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. According to the baseline for zero-parameter tools, a score of 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 states a specific verb ('check') and resource ('API key and account'), and clearly conveys the tool's diagnostic purpose. It is easily distinguishable from the sibling redaction and job-status tools because it is explicitly framed as a pre-batch validation step.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: call this before a large batch to fail fast on a bad or missing key rather than after uploading. It also provides an exclusion for retrying 'out of pages' errors, which is a clear error-handling instruction that helps the agent decide when not to retry a related call.

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

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by explaining the full status progression, which statuses are terminal, and the recommended polling behavior. It also discloses that each document reports its own status, page_count, and error_message, giving the agent a realistic model of the tool's behavior.

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, followed only by high-value behavioral details: statuses, final states, polling advice, and per-document reporting. Every sentence contributes useful information without repetition or filler.

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 single-parameter status-check tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains the status model, terminal states, polling cadence, and the per-document outcome fields, so an agent has enough context to call the tool and interpret results correctly.

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 input schema already describes job_id as 'The job_id returned by redact_pdf,' so coverage is complete. The description does not need to add parameter-level detail and does not repeat it; this is an acceptable baseline when the schema carries the meaning.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Check a redaction job's progress.' It clearly identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from sibling tools like redact_pdf, redact_pdf_and_wait, and download_redacted, which perform different actions.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: to check whether a job is still in flight and what statuses mean. It also provides polling guidance, telling the agent to wait seconds between checks rather than tight-looping. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the sibling list and the status lifecycle make the intended use unambiguous.

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

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

The description is highly transparent on its own: it states redaction is permanent, irreversible, text is deleted rather than hidden, the original is deleted after processing, and processing occurs on Azure. However, the annotations declare destructiveHint=false, which directly contradicts the description's claims that the tool permanently deletes content and the original file. This is an annotation contradiction and makes the structured safety signal actively misleading.

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 longer than average but front-loaded with the key behavior and contains genuinely useful operational information. Some details about encryption and AI training are contextually relevant but not strictly necessary for invoking the tool, so it is not maximally concise.

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 description explains the asynchronous nature, accepted file formats, return value (job_id plus document IDs), and the correct follow-up calls (get_job_status, then download_redacted). Since there is no output schema, this return-value guidance is essential and is fully covered. The input schema already documents all parameters in depth, so nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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 100%, and the schema already provides detailed, meaningful descriptions for every parameter including idempotency behavior, exclusions, and retention. The tool description adds overall workflow context but not much parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already states, so baseline 3 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Start a redaction job and return immediately without waiting.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from redact_pdf_and_wait and describes what the operation does, including the permanent deletion behavior. The scope and behavior are 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?

It explicitly says to prefer redact_pdf_and_wait unless you need parallel jobs or want to poll on your own schedule, naming the alternative and the conditions for choosing this tool. It also gives concrete input guidance: pass images directly, do not convert them to PDF first.

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

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds substantial behavioral context: permanent irreversible redaction (not a black rectangle), OCR for scanned docs, 100+ languages, Azure EU/Switzerland processing, encryption, original deletion, and blocking behavior with 10-60s typical wait. It also discloses timeout behavior and that the job continues server-side. The only minor gap is that it doesn't explicitly state the output format beyond 'redacted PDF', but the schema covers that.

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 long but every section earns its place: the opening sentence front-loads the core purpose, the irreversibility warning is critical for a destructive tool, the image-input note prevents a common mistake, and the API-key fallback routing is essential. It is somewhat dense and could be tightened, but it is well-structured with clear paragraphs and no redundancy.

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 complex, destructive, blocking tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers all the critical context an agent needs: what it does, when to use it, what happens on timeout, how to handle missing API keys, privacy/security posture, and parameter semantics. The absence of an output schema is compensated by the description's clear statement that it returns the redacted PDF and a job_id on timeout.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema: it explains the default retention behavior, warns against passing an empty pii_categories list, explains the idempotency key's billing implication, and clarifies that output is always PDF even for image inputs. This goes beyond what the schema descriptions provide, so a 4 is warranted.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Redact a PDF, photo or screenshot and wait for the finished file') and immediately distinguishes itself as the one-call tool that uploads, detects, redacts, waits, and returns the finished file. It clearly differentiates from siblings like redact_pdf, download_redacted, and get_job_status by framing itself as the START HERE entry point.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('Use it whenever someone wants PII... removed'), explicitly says to pass images directly rather than converting to PDF, and names the alternative try_demo for the no-API-key case. It also tells the agent to poll get_job_status on timeout rather than re-uploading, which is a clear routing instruction.

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

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: only the first page is redacted, the original is deleted after processing, nothing is stored beyond that page, the link stays valid for 14 days, and the no-file mode never touches user data. It also clarifies that both modes cost nothing. This goes beyond the annotations, though it doesn't detail every edge case (e.g., what happens on failure).

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 well-structured with numbered modes, clear bullets, and front-loaded purpose. Every sentence earns its place: it covers the two modes, the key limitations (first page only, 5 MB max, 14-day link), the deletion behavior, and the follow-up action for the agent. It is appropriately sized for a tool with 7 parameters and two distinct usage modes.

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 tool's complexity (two modes, 7 optional parameters, no output schema), the description is remarkably complete. It tells the agent what the tool does, when to use it, what the limitations are, what happens to the data, and what to tell the user afterward. The absence of an output schema is compensated by the description's explanation of what is returned (categories found, link to redacted page).

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: it explains the two modes (file vs no-file), clarifies that pii_categories should usually be omitted to use account defaults, and warns against passing an empty list. It also gives practical guidance on file_url vs file_base64 and file_path. This is more than the baseline 3, though the schema still carries most of the parameter-level detail.

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's purpose: 'Try redaction with no API key' and explains two distinct modes (with a file, without a file). It names the specific resource (first page of a PDF/photo/screenshot or built-in sample) and differentiates itself from the sibling tool redact_pdf_and_wait by explicitly noting that only the first page is redacted here.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: use this to show a user real output on their own document before they sign up, and use redact_pdf_and_wait with a key for the whole document. It also explains the no-file mode for confirming connectivity and tells the agent what to do when the user wants the rest of the document (tell them about the free account and ask for the key).

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