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

No annotations are present. The description only mentions that identifiers are not retained, which is a privacy note, but does not explain side effects, deterministic behavior, or whether the tool modifies any state. The 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, which is concise, but it lacks substance. It does not front-load the core purpose or provide any useful detail about the tool's functionality, making the brevity counterproductive.

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?

Given the tool has 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too minimal. It does not explain what the tool does, what the output looks like, or how the parameters relate to the classification process. This is insufficient for an agent to use correctly.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters and each parameter has a meaningful description (e.g., 'discarded after the shape check'). However, without a clear tool purpose, these descriptions do not convey how the parameters are used together or why they are relevant to classification. The baseline for full coverage is 3.

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' gives a vague sense of classification but does not specify what kind of classification, what inputs are used, or what output is produced. It does not clearly distinguish this tool from siblings like 'validate-json' or 'normalize-url'.

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 alternatives. There is no mention of specific scenarios or conditions that would make this tool the appropriate choice among the sibling tools.

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