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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states 'No identifiers are retained,' which is a limited privacy note, but it does not explain side effects, read-only status, or what processing occurs.

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 short and front-loaded, but it is too terse to be useful. It omits necessary details about the classification process and parameter relationships, making the brevity a drawback rather than an asset.

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?

The tool has 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description must provide sufficient context. It does not explain what output form the classification takes, how to interpret results, or how the parameters influence the outcome, leaving the tool largely unusable.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the parameter descriptions are incoherent for a single tool. Terms like 'discarded after the shape check,' 'normalize or cite,' and 'public weather hint' suggest they are copied from other tools and do not clarify how each parameter is used for this classification tool.

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 the tool's actual function or resource. It does not distinguish this tool from any of the 26 siblings, and the name 'compatibility' does not clarify the behavior.

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 any alternative. The description lacks any indication of what request types are suitable, what the classification means, or how it relates to sibling tools.

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