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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only says 'No identifiers are retained,' a privacy guarantee, but doesn't disclose whether the tool performs side effects (network, disk, writes), whether it's read-only, or what exactly happens to the inputs. The verb 'show' implies read-only, but that's not explicit.

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 (two sentences) with no wasted words, which is good. However, the first sentence is vague and the second is a privacy note; the brevity doesn't compensate for the lack of substantive content. It's concise but not helpful.

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 9 parameters and no output schema, the description must explain what the tool returns and how the parameters are used. It says 'Show how this request is classified' but doesn't define the classification output or the role of each parameter. An agent can't predict the response format or even know if it returns a string, a boolean, or something else.

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 coverage is 100%—every parameter has a description in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail; it's generic. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting and the description doesn't need to repeat 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 'Show how this request is classified' is vague—it doesn't specify what 'classified' means (e.g., shape validation, type check, compatibility assessment). The name 'compatibility' hints at a purpose, but the description doesn't name a concrete verb+resource or distinguish it from siblings like 'domain-shape' 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus any of the 27 siblings. No alternatives, no exclusions, no context on typical use cases. An agent gets no help deciding between this and 'validate-json' or 'file-path-ok'.

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