audit_deidentification

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states 'audit-oriented summary,' hinting at a read-only operation, but fails to detail whether it modifies data, requires special permissions, or returns paginated results.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that is concise. However, it could be slightly longer to cover key details without becoming verbose.

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 lack of output schema, the description should explain what the summary contains more precisely. Currently, it vaguely mentions 'PHI-like identifiers and limitations,' which is insufficient for an agent to anticipate the output.

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%, and the parameter 'text' is described in the schema as 'Plain text to inspect.' The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond this.

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 verb 'return' and resource 'audit-oriented summary of PHI-like identifiers and limitations,' which differentiates it from sibling tools like 'redact_phi' (modification) and 'scan_phi' (detection). However, it does not explicitly contrast with 'validate_no_phi'.

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 usage for auditing (e.g., compliance review) but does not specify when to prefer this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. Sibling names offer some context, but no explicit guidance.

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