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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description need not repeat those. It adds a valuable privacy guarantee, 'No identifiers are retained,' which is consistent with the non-destructive, read-only profile. There is no contradiction between the description and annotations.

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, front-loads the purpose, and adds a useful privacy note with no filler. Both sentences earn their place. It is slightly too terse to be considered fully appropriate for the tool's complexity, but structurally it is clean and efficient.

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 seven heterogeneous optional parameters, no output schema, and no explanation of how the classification result is expressed or which input is expected. The privacy note is helpful, but the description still leaves an agent without enough information to invoke the tool correctly or interpret its result. The generic name and vague classification wording make this incomplete for the tool's 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?

All seven parameters have their own schema descriptions, so schema coverage is high and the baseline is 3. The description adds no information about whether the parameters are alternatives, should be combined, or which one should be supplied for a given classification request. The schema carries the semantic weight, and the description does not go beyond it.

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 states a verb and object: 'Show how this request is classified,' which gives a general purpose, but never explains what classification scheme or compatibility criteria are involved. The tool name 'compatibility' is generic and does not distinguish this from the narrow sibling probes like browser-url-ok or file-path-ok. It is vague rather than tautological, so it earns a 3.

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?

The phrase 'Show how this request is classified' only implies a use case: use when a classification is needed. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternative sibling tools. Given the large family of similarly narrow checks, an agent has little basis for choosing this tool over alternatives.

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