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

The description adds a useful behavioral guarantee: 'No identifiers are retained', which aligns with the schema notes that values are 'discarded after the check'. However, with no annotations present, the description does not disclose whether the tool performs network calls, requires auth, or has other side effects, so the behavioral picture is incomplete.

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 brief and contains no filler: one sentence states the purpose and one states a privacy guarantee. However, for a tool with nine optional parameters and no output schema, it is undersized and does not provide enough structured context to be considered appropriately sized.

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 clarify what the classification result looks like and how to choose among the many heterogeneous optional inputs. It does neither, so an agent cannot reliably know what return value to expect or when to prefer this tool over the specific sibling shape-check tools.

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 the baseline is 3; each parameter already has a meaningful description such as 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check'. The tool description adds no selection rules about whether parameters are alternatives or how many should be supplied, but the schema carries the individual parameter semantics.

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 verb ('show') and an object ('how this request is classified'), so it is not a tautology. But it never defines what classification means, what 'this request' refers to, or how it relates to the tool's name 'compatibility', and it does not distinguish it from sibling shape-check tools. This is a clear but vague 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?

There is no guidance about when to call this tool instead of any sibling such as domain-shape, normalize-url, validate-json, or file-path-ok. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative-selection cues are provided, leaving usage entirely to inference.

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