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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only promises 'No identifiers are retained,' which is a privacy note, but it doesn't clarify whether the tool performs network calls, reads files, or has any side effects. The phrase 'discarded after the shape check' in the schema hints at read-only behavior, but the description itself is silent on mutation, permissions, or output behavior.

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 core purpose is stated first, and the privacy guarantee is a valuable addition. It is efficiently front-loaded and easy to parse, though it could afford a bit more substance.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (9 heterogeneous parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'classification' means, what the output looks like, or when an agent should prefer this over a more specific sibling. The schema param descriptions give hints, but the overall behavior and return format are missing, making the tool hard to use confidently.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage, with each parameter described individually (e.g., 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check', 'JSON text to validate; discarded after the check'). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies—the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 classified'), but 'classified' is ambiguous—it doesn't specify what classification criteria or categories are involved. It also doesn't distinguish the tool from sibling shape-checkers like 'domain-shape' or 'github-repo-shape', leaving the agent to infer the tool's unique role.

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 on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools that also inspect inputs (e.g., 'normalize-url', 'validate-json', 'file-path-ok'). There are no conditions, exclusions, or alternatives mentioned, so the agent cannot route correctly.

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