Zé privacy audit

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

The annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful context beyond those annotations by revealing that it reports redaction defaults and the gating condition for place-order, which helps an agent understand the system state without invoking place_order. 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?

The description is one sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the main verb and content. Every part contributes meaningful information about what the audit reports.

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-required-parameter read-only tool, the description gives enough information for an agent to decide to invoke it and understand the key output areas. It does not explain what 'both gates' refers to, and there is no output schema, but the core behavior and scope are adequately conveyed.

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 not mentioned in the description at all. The schema offers an enum and default but no explanatory prose, and with 0% schema description coverage the description was expected to compensate; it does not. The parameter is simple and optional, so this is not severely misleading, but the description provides no parameter guidance.

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 uses a specific verb ('Shows') and identifies the resource (privacy audit) while enumerating the exact content: redaction defaults and place-order gating status. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like ze_search or ze_place_order.

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 implies when to use this tool: to check privacy redaction defaults and whether place-order is currently enabled. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide any exclusions or prerequisites.

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