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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the tool returns 'draft config' or 'specific version's config,' clarifying the return semantics. It does not contradict annotations and adds meaningful behavioral context beyond what annotations 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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main action, then adds the version capability and a practical pointer. There is no fluff or redundant wording; every word earns its place.

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 presence of an output schema and annotations covering safety, the description is largely complete. It explains the core behavior (draft vs. specific version) and tells the agent how to find IDs. The only minor gap is not mentioning list_classifier_versions for discovering version identifiers, and the default version behavior is implied rather than explicit, but this is a small omission.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning: it implies the default version is 'draft' and that version selects a config, but this is largely redundant with the schema's version description. No new parameter-level insights are provided beyond what the schema already documents.

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 a clear verb ('get'), a specific resource ('classifier'), and distinguishes between retrieving the draft config or a specific version's config. It also names the sibling for ID discovery, which differentiates it from list_classifiers. The only minor ambiguity is the phrase 'classify group,' but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 explicitly instructs to use list_classifiers for discovering IDs, which is a direct usage pointer. However, it does not contrast with list_classifier_versions for version listing, nor does it state when not to use this tool (e.g., when only IDs are needed). This is a useful hint but not a full usage guide.

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