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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does add one useful privacy guarantee ('No identifiers are retained'), which matches the schema's 'discarded after the check' notes. But it does not disclose what the classification output looks like, whether any external requests are made, what errors can occur, or what side effects exist beyond not retaining identifiers.

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 concise: one sentence, no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. However, for a tool with 9 parameters, no output schema, and a large sibling list, this is under-specification rather than appropriately sized structure.

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 tool's complexity, all-optional parameters, absence of an output schema, and lack of annotations, the description is not complete enough. An agent cannot determine which parameter to populate, what classification labels to expect, or what the tool returns. The detailed input schema partially compensates, but the overall tool contract remains unclear.

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 every parameter already has its own semantic explanation, e.g., 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check.' The tool description adds no per-parameter meaning, but it does not need to because the schema fully documents the parameters. Baseline 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 names a clear action ('Show how this request is classified') and a general object, so it is not a pure tautology. However, it never explains what classification scheme is used, what labels/categories are produced, or how this relates to the tool name 'compatibility.' It also does not distinguish the tool from sibling classifiers/shape tools like domain-shape, figma-url-shape, or validate-json.

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 sentence saying when this tool should be used instead of the many sibling tools. The description gives no use cases, exclusions, or routing hints; the only contextual signal comes from the input schema rather than from the description itself.

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