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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add some behavioral context: 'No identifiers are retained' implies an ephemeral, privacy-conscious operation and 'Show' suggests read-only behavior. Still, it omits details such as whether any external calls are made, what the output format is, or how failures are handled, leaving noticeable gaps.

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 very concise: two short sentences. The main action is front-loaded ('Show how this request is classified') and the privacy note is a separate meaningful sentence with no filler or repetition. 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?

This tool has nine heterogeneous parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description does not explain how the parameters feed into 'classification,' what output the agent should expect, or how this tool relates to its many siblings. For a tool with such a broad input surface, the description is incomplete and leaves too much to inference.

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 fully documents all nine parameters with individual descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail or relationships between parameters; it does not compensate or extend what the schema already provides.

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 specific action ('Show how this request is classified') and adds a privacy guarantee, so it is not a pure tautology. However, it does not define what 'classified' means, what classification categories exist, or how it differs from sibling tools like domain-shape or validate-json. The agent gets only a vague sense of the tool's purpose.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool instead of the many sibling shape/check tools. There are no stated conditions, exclusions, or alternatives. The description only says what the tool does, not when to select it.

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