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

The only behavioral statement is 'No identifiers are retained,' which offers a privacy hint but does not describe the actual operation, side effects, or result format. Without annotations, this is insufficient.

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 concise and structurally simple, but the brevity sacrifices clarity. It is short but not effectively informative.

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 lacks essential context: no output schema, no examples, no criteria for classification, and no explanation of how the nine optional parameters interact. This is severely incomplete for a tool with such a broad input set.

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?

Each parameter has a brief semantic hint (e.g., 'Git ref name', 'HTTPS URL'), but these hints are generic and do not explain how they relate to 'compatibility' or how the tool uses them together. The 100% schema coverage is superficial.

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 what classification means or what output the tool produces. It does not clearly distinguish this tool from sibling validation/shape tools like 'domain-shape' or 'fetch-status'.

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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not explain when to use this tool, what inputs are expected to be combined, or how it differs from similar tools.

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