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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, and the description adds a valuable behavioral trait: 'No network calls — instant response.' This extra context reassures the agent that classification is local and fast, going beyond what the annotations alone 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?

Two tight sentences deliver the core function, the key behavioral guarantee, and the usage context. Every clause earns its place, and the primary action appears immediately.

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 simple read-only classifier with fully documented parameters, the description covers what the tool does, when to use it, and its performance characteristics. It does not describe the return payload, but the tool's simplicity and the lack of an output schema make this a modest rather than critical gap.

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%, with both input and asset_type already documented in the schema. The description adds a few examples of asset types but does not materially improve parameter understanding beyond the structured definitions, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Classify an input') and enumerates the categories it can recognize ('domain, IP, package, repository, etc.'). This clearly distinguishes it from the lookup sibling by framing classification as a prerequisite step to a fuller operation.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: before performing a full lookup to understand what an asset is. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the intended positioning is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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