redact_pii

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

With no annotations, the description fully takes on transparency: it discloses per-call pricing ($0.02 via x402), states Verity holds no key and never charges silently, describes what is flagged, lists return fields, and clarifies affiliate_id behavior. This is exceptional behavioral disclosure for a paid API.

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 bit longer then typical, but every sentence earns its place: purpose, pricing, use timing, return summary, pricing transparency, affiliate disclaimers, and OWASP mapping. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and remains scannable despite its length.

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 there is no output schema, the description usefully enumerates return fields (verdict, severity, findings, reasons, redacted version). It also covers cost, security context, and affiliate behavior. The only notable gap is the undocumented context parameter, but the rest is thorough enough for a tool of moderate complexity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains payload well and explicitly describes affiliate_id's purpose and non-effect on pricing/behavior. However, the context parameter is not mentioned at all, leaving its meaning and intended use unclear.

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 ('Detect personal data and secrets') and clearly identifies the resource (PAYLOAD) and the broader purpose (before being sent, stored, or logged). It also distinguishes itself from sibling verification/guard tools by focusing on PII/secrets redaction and pre-transmission safety.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use before an agent transmits text outside a trust boundary,' giving a clear use-case. It doesn't name alternatives or state when-not-to-use, but the context is strong enough to guide selection among siblings.

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