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

The description contributes one meaningful behavioral fact: 'No identifiers are retained.' Parameter descriptions also mention discarding ref, city, json, and path values. However, with no annotations, the description still fails to disclose whether the tool makes network calls, whether it is read-only, or what side effects might occur.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a useful privacy guarantee. 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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description must explain expected results and usage boundaries, but it only gives a vague action and a privacy note. It does not clarify how the heterogeneous parameters relate, what output to expect, or how this tool differs from the many similar sibling tools. This is incomplete for reliable invocation.

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 already provides 100% parameter descriptions, so the tool description itself adds no extra parameter meaning. Statements like 'discarded after the shape check' live in the schema, not in the description. A baseline score of 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb and object: 'Show how this request is classified.' However, it never defines what classification means, what categories are returned, or how the output is structured. The tool name 'compatibility' and the large sibling list do not clarify this ambiguity.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool instead of a sibling like domain-shape, validate-json, or fetch-status. There are no alternatives, exclusions, or conditions given, leaving an agent to guess based on the vague phrase 'how this request is classified.'

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