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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a meaningful behavioral trait: 'No identifiers are retained' indicates privacy and non-persistence. However, it does not clarify side effects, whether any external calls occur, or how the request is processed beyond classification.

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 main action is front-loaded and the privacy guarantee earns its place as a distinct, useful statement.

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?

Despite the schema covering each parameter, the tool has 9 optional inputs and no output schema. The description does not explain what the classification output looks like, how the parameters relate to the classification, or what makes this tool useful in context. One vague sentence is insufficient for a multi-input classification tool.

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 all parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning; it only adds a general privacy note. This matches the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 an action ('Show how this request is classified') but leaves the classification concept undefined. It is not a tautology, but it does not clearly specify what the classification is, what inputs drive it, or how it differs from sibling classification tools like domain-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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools. The description does not mention alternative tools, prerequisites, or conditions that would select this tool.

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