99 privacy audit

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds the meaningful audit content: which defaults are shown and the condition for request-ride being off. No contradiction with 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?

A single, compact sentence with no filler. It front-loads the key action ('Shows redaction defaults') and packs the gate condition efficiently.

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 simple read-only audit tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential content. The phrase 'both gates' is not expanded, but this appears to be domain-specific terminology and does not block invocation.

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 only parameter, response_format, is fully self-documenting via its enum and default in the schema. Although schema coverage is 0%, the description adds no parameter info, but none is really needed for such a simple option.

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 begins with a specific verb ('Shows') and names concrete resources: redaction defaults for street/phone/GPS and the request-ride gate condition. This clearly differentiates it from all sibling tools, none of which are privacy-focused.

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 usage is implied: use this to audit privacy/redaction settings. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of another, but no sibling tool overlaps with this purpose, so differentiation is less critical.

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