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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false; the description goes further by disclosing the billing model ('each text counts as one decision on the account's plan'), which explains the non-idempotent, costly nature of the call. It also describes the per-result shape (label, confidence, all label probabilities, unsure flag) in the absence of an output schema. Remaining gaps: no error or failure behavior when a classifier is not ready.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the verb and scope, then return shape, then cost. No filler or redundancy; every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

For a batch inference tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, batch limit, result fields, and cost. It is slightly short on edge behavior such as what happens when both 'text' and 'texts' are supplied or when a classifier is untrained.

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, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema by imposing the 256-text batch cap, an operational constraint absent from the parameter definitions. It does not, however, clarify the single 'text' versus 'texts' array usage.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: labeling texts with a ready classifier, with a concrete batch limit of 256. This is clearly distinct from sibling tools like decide_create_classifier or get_decide_classifier, though the description never names them explicitly to route the agent.

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 phrase 'with a ready classifier' implies the prerequisite that a classifier must already exist (created via decide_create_classifier), which is useful context. However there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, and nothing tells the agent how to choose between the 'text' and 'texts' parameters.

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