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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only mentions 'No identifiers are retained,' which is a privacy note but does not explain side effects, return format, or any processing steps. The tool's actual behavior remains opaque.

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 filler, which is structurally clean and front-loaded. However, its brevity is a liability given the tool's complexity; it earns its place but is insufficient for the scope.

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, yet the description offers only a cryptic one-liner. It does not explain what the tool returns, how the parameters combine, or what 'classified' means, making it inadequate for correct 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?

The schema coverage is 100% and each parameter already has descriptive text (e.g., 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check'). The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters, so it neither helps nor hurts. Baseline of 3 is appropriate for high coverage.

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 is performed, what output to expect, or how it relates to the parameters. It fails to distinguish this tool from siblings like 'domain-shape' or 'validate-json' which have clear purposes.

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 does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess the appropriate scenario for invocation.

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