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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses only that 'No identifiers are retained,' which is a privacy guarantee, but does not state whether the tool is read-only, what side effects (if any) occur, what the return value looks like, or how the classification is computed. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, and the primary purpose is front-loaded. However, the second sentence about identifiers is a secondary note and the overall brevity leaves the tool underspecified; it is concise but not sufficiently informative to earn a higher score.

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, the description is far too thin. It does not explain what classification means, how the parameters relate to the classification, or what the caller should expect as output. This is inadequate for effective invocation.

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 coverage is 100% – every parameter has a description (e.g., 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check'). The tool description itself adds no parameter information, but the schema already provides meaning. Per the rubric, baseline 3 applies when schema covers all params, and the description does not need to repeat it.

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 object 'how this request is classified' is abstract and does not explain what classification means or what categories exist. It does not differentiate from siblings like domain-shape, file-path-ok, or github-repo-shape, which all perform specific shape checks; 'compatibility' could be a router or a checker, but the description leaves that ambiguous.

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, no mention of prerequisites, and no indication of what conditions favor it over siblings. The description offers zero context for selection.

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