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

The description explicitly states 'No identifiers are retained' and parameter descriptions mention values are 'discarded after the shape check', which provides some transparency about data handling. However, it does not disclose whether the tool has any side effects, network access, or what it returns.

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 short and free of unnecessary words, making it concise. However, it is so sparse that some important information is missing, which slightly lowers the score from a perfect 5.

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 9 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is not complete enough. It never explains what 'classified' means, what output to expect, or how to use the parameters together.

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 descriptions cover 100% of the parameters, each with a brief explanation of its type and purpose, so the baseline is 3. The tool description itself adds no additional relational meaning or guidance about how the parameters interact.

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 'Show how this request is classified' is vague and does not specify what 'request' refers to or what classification means. It also does not distinguish this tool from the many sibling shape/checker tools.

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 alternatives like normalize-url, validate-json, or domain-shape. No conditions, exclusions, or preferred use cases are mentioned.

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