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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries full behavioral responsibility but only discloses 'No identifiers are retained'. It does not explain whether the tool performs external lookups, whether it is read-only, what happens to the supplied data beyond retention, or what kind of classification is returned.

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 short and without filler, but it is under-specified rather than concise. Two vague sentences leave the reader without enough detail to use the tool effectively, especially for a 9-parameter tool.

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 complex tool with 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely lacking. It does not disclose what the output looks like, what classification categories exist, how the parameters are used, or what makes a request 'compatible'.

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% and each parameter has a specific description, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, and the connection between the 9 varied parameters and 'classification' is unclear.

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 only says 'Show how this request is classified' without clarifying what kind of classification, what a 'request' means, or how this relates to the tool name 'compatibility'. It does not identify a concrete resource or verb action, and it fails to differentiate this tool from the many sibling shape/validation/hint tools.

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 about when to use this tool over siblings like domain-shape, validate-json, or fetch-status. The description offers no context, no prerequisites, and no 'when not to use' advice.

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