verify_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool returns a result where 'safe_to_send=false' means the text cannot be sent, but it omits many critical details: whether the tool has side effects, what the exact output structure is, authentication requirements, or rate limits. The description is too minimal for a tool with 7 parameters.

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 two sentences, concise and front-loaded: first sentence states purpose, second explains a key output indicator. No redundant information. For a tool with a single core action, this is appropriately sized.

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 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is notably incomplete. It does not explain the return value format (e.g., boolean, object with 'safe_to_send'), how parameters like 'mask_urls' or 'tag_style' influence verification, or how this tool relates to the sibling 'scan_document' (both seem to check PII). An agent would lack essential context to use it 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?

Schema description coverage is 86% (6 of 7 parameters have descriptions), so baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any commentary on parameters beyond what the schema already provides. For example, it doesn't explain how 'allowlist' or 'aggressive_names' affect the verification logic. The description thus provides no additional value for parameter understanding.

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 states the verb 'Проверить' (check) and resource 'текст' (text), clearly indicating it verifies absence of personal data. It also hints at the output semantics with 'safe_to_send=false'. This differentiates it from siblings like mask_text (which modifies) and scan_document (which likely processes documents). However, it does not explicitly specify the return type (e.g., boolean or object), slightly reducing clarity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like mask_text or scan_document. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical workflows (e.g., 'call after masking'), or exclusions. The sibling tools suggest different operations, but the description does not help an agent decide.

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