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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects and privacy. The only disclosure is 'No identifiers are retained', which addresses data retention but says nothing about read-only status, external calls, error behavior, or output format. This is minimal coverage for a tool with 9 parameters.

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 only two sentences, which is concise, but it omits essential information such as what the tool actually does with the inputs. This is under-specification, not efficient conciseness; the tool needs more explanation to be usable.

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?

With 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description must provide substantial guidance, but it only offers a vague statement about classification and a privacy note. The agent has no idea what to expect from the output, how the parameters interact, or what 'classification' entails. This is completely inadequate for a tool of this complexity.

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 description coverage is 100%, so each parameter is documented in the schema with notes like 'discarded after the shape check'. The description itself adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 says 'Show how this request is classified' but does not specify what classification means, what resource is being classified, or what the output looks like. The tool name 'compatibility' is also vague and does not clarify the purpose. It fails to distinguish itself from many specific sibling tools like 'domain-shape' or 'validate-json'.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus the many alternatives. There is no mention of conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess which of the 9 parameters is relevant for a given scenario.

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