get_redaction_log

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

The description adds substantial context beyond the readOnlyHint: it explains the tool reads from runtime_redaction_log, which is populated only when ingest_sql_log runs with redact=True, and clarifies that an empty result is a meaningful outcome. This is valuable behavioral disclosure that annotations alone don't provide.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the function/return value, the populating dependency, and a critical edge-case clarification. Information is front-loaded, no redundant phrasing, and the description is compact yet rich.

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 moderate complexity, no output schema, and good annotations, the description covers the purpose, return value ('per-pattern counts'), filtering options, and an important empty-result interpretation. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke 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 schema already documents 'source' and 'since_days' with descriptions (67% coverage). The description's phrase 'Filter by source and lookback window' merely restates the schema. It adds no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is correct.

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 function: 'Forensic accounting of PII redactions for a dataset' and specifies the output: 'Returns per-pattern counts from runtime_redaction_log'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by referencing the specific log and its population source (ingest_sql_log), making it uniquely identifiable.

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 intended use case is explicitly stated: 'so operators can verify the chokepoint is firing on production traffic.' It also notes 'Empty result with no traces ingested is not an error,' which guides interpretation. However, it does not mention when to avoid this tool or provide alternatives, so a 4 is appropriate.

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