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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure, and it does offer one meaningful promise: 'No identifiers are retained.' The per-parameter schema notes about values being 'discarded' add some transparency, but the description itself does not state whether the tool makes network calls, has side effects, or how the classification is computed.

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 only two sentences long with no filler, and the main claim is front-loaded. It is concise and easy to scan, though the brevity contributes to the lack of substantive guidance.

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?

This 9-parameter tool has no output schema, no annotations, and no explanation of what classification means, what the result looks like, or which sibling tools it complements. An agent has almost no basis for invoking it correctly or interpreting its result.

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 each of the 9 parameters already has its own descriptive text. The tool description adds no extra parameter-level meaning, such as how the parameters combine or which fields are mutually exclusive, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 says the tool will 'Show how this request is classified', which gives a general idea of classification, but never defines what classification means, what categories exist, or what output the agent should expect. The name 'compatibility' and the broad parameter list do not clarify this, and the description does not distinguish it from sibling shape-check tools like domain-shape, validate-json, or search-query-len.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus any of the 27 sibling tools. The description provides no context, examples, exclusions, or condition-based routing, so an agent cannot determine whether this should be called before or instead of related classifiers.

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