sanitize_pii

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that PII is replaced with '[REDACTED]' and returns sanitized text, which is reasonable. However, it lacks details on what PII is detected, whether it's reversible, or any side effects.

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 sentence of 14 words, making it very concise. While it is not verbose, it sacrifices parameter documentation and additional context. It earns a 4 for being tight and front-loaded.

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 has 3 parameters (with defaults) and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It explains the output format but ignores the purpose of the optional parameters, leaving the agent with incomplete guidance for effective use.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain any parameters (text, tx_hash, wallet_address). For a low-coverage schema, the description should compensate but fails to add any meaning beyond the schema itself.

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 purpose: sanitizing PII from text. It uses a specific verb-resource combination ('Sanitize PII from text') and explains the output format. There are no sibling tools, so no differentiation needed.

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 a clear use case: 'before sending to LLMs,' which implies when to use it. However, it does not include explicit guidance on when not to use or mention alternatives, which keeps it from a perfect score.

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