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

No annotations are present, and the description only notes that identifiers are not retained. It does not disclose whether the tool performs reads/writes, whether it has side effects, or how data is handled beyond retention.

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 free of fluff, but its brevity contributes to vagueness rather than clarity. Structure is acceptable.

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 optional parameters, no output schema, and no explanation of what a 'classification' result looks like or how inputs are combined. The description is incomplete for an agent to predict behavior.

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?

All 9 parameters have schema descriptions, providing some individual meaning (e.g., 'IANA timezone name', 'JSON text to validate'), but the descriptions are eclectic and do not clarify how the parameters relate to the stated purpose of classification or compatibility.

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?

Description states 'Show how this request is classified' but does not specify what classification means or what resource/action is involved. It does not distinguish from sibling tools like fetch-status 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 about when to use this tool versus any alternative. The description does not mention contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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