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

The description states 'No identifiers are retained,' which is a privacy trait, but it does not disclose other behavioral aspects such as whether the operation is read-only, side effects, auth requirements, or rate limits. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and only partially covers it.

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 wasted words, but it is under-specified. It is concise but not appropriately sized for a tool with nine heterogeneous parameters and no annotations or output schema. The brevity detracts from usefulness.

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 tool with nine parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain what classification is returned, what the output looks like, how to interpret results, or any error behavior. An agent cannot correctly invoke or use this tool based on the description alone.

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 description does not mention any of the nine parameters or how they relate to classification. The input schema has 100% coverage with detailed per-parameter notes (e.g., 'discarded after the shape check'), but the tool description adds no meaning beyond the schema. It misses the opportunity to explain how parameters collectively drive the classification.

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 says 'Show how this request is classified' but does not specify what classification means, what categories are used, or what input/output relationship exists. It is vague and does not differentiate from sibling tools like domain-shape or github-repo-shape, which are specific shape-checkers.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. The agent receives no direction on selection.

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