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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only adds 'No identifiers are retained.' This is a useful privacy note, yet it does not disclose whether the tool makes external calls, accesses local data, returns a classification format, or has other side effects. The schema's per-parameter notes like 'no disk access' and 'discarded after' help, but the overall tool 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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a privacy note. There is no redundant wording or filler, so it earns a high score for conciseness despite being semantically thin.

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?

This is a nine-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, yet the description does not explain what classification result the agent should expect or which parameters are appropriate in which scenarios. The rich schema covers parameter meaning, but the tool's core semantics and return value are missing, making it insufficient for reliable invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, and each of the nine parameters has an individual explanation, including discard behavior and constraints. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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'), so it is not a pure tautology, but it leaves the classification scheme undefined. An agent cannot tell what dimensions or categories are being classified, nor how this differs from sibling shape/classification tools such as domain-shape or jira-key-shape.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus any of the many sibling tools. There are no alternatives named, no conditions, and no exclusions, so the agent must guess when 'compatibility' is the right choice.

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