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

With no annotations present, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds a meaningful privacy guarantee ('No identifiers are retained') that aligns with the parameter descriptions, but it does not disclose other behaviors like network access, persistence, or side effects.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The main purpose is stated first, and the privacy note follows, making it well-structured and appropriately concise.

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?

Despite having multiple parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description does not explain what the classification result looks like, how parameters interact, or when this tool should be chosen. It is too sparse for an agent to invoke confidently.

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?

The schema descriptions cover all parameters with specific details (e.g., 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check', 'JSON text to validate; discarded after the check'), so schema coverage is high. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level semantics beyond a general no-retention statement.

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 clear action ('Show') and a resource ('how this request is classified'), so an agent knows it produces a classification. However, it never defines what 'classified' means or what categories are returned, leaving the tool's purpose vague and hard to distinguish from sibling shape/classification 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?

The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as domain-shape, validate-json, or normalize-url. It gives no context about the intended input scenarios or exclusions.

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