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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions 'No identifiers are retained,' which addresses privacy but not core behavior—whether it performs network calls, modifies state, or returns a specific structure. The description is silent on these aspects.

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 a single sentence with no waste, but it is too terse to be genuinely useful. Conciseness is achieved at the expense of essential information, so it is adequate but not exemplary.

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?

For a tool with 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what classification means, how the inputs are used, or what the response looks like, leaving the agent with insufficient guidance to call it correctly.

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%, and each parameter has a clear description (e.g., 'discarded after the shape check'). The tool description itself adds no parameter-level detail, but the schema already carries that load, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Show') and a resource ('this request') but the phrase 'how this request is classified' is vague—it doesn't specify the classification criteria, output format, or purpose. It also fails to distinguish the tool from siblings like 'domain-shape' or 'validate-json' which have clearer scopes.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description offers no context, prerequisites, or examples, leaving the agent to guess based on the name alone.

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