Try redaction with no API key

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema: it requires no API key or upload, never touches user data, costs nothing, and returns a real redaction with detected PII and a link to the redacted PDF. This fully discloses side effects (none) and output characteristics.

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?

Two short paragraphs with zero waste. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by output details and usage guidance. The exclusion and sibling reference are efficiently placed in the final sentence.

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 zero-parameter demo utility with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it does, what it returns, when to use it, and what it cannot do. It also names the appropriate sibling for real documents. No meaningful gaps remain.

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 and 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description reinforces this by stating 'no API key and no upload', but there are no parameter semantics to add beyond the empty schema.

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 action and resource: 'Verify this server works... Runs the keyless demo endpoint, which returns a real redaction of a built-in synthetic-PII sample.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings by explicitly stating 'It cannot redact a real document — use redact_pdf_and_wait for that.' The purpose is 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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this to confirm connectivity or to show a user what redaction output looks like before they sign up.' It also names the alternative tool for real redaction and states the exclusion: 'It cannot redact a real document — use redact_pdf_and_wait for that.'

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