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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'No identifiers are retained,' which is a useful privacy note, but it fails to mention whether the operation is read-only, what side effects exist, or how the classification is produced. For a tool with nine parameters, this is inadequate.

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 action and a privacy note. There is no fluff, but its brevity under-specifies the tool. It earns a 4 for being concise without being verbose.

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?

With nine optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fails to explain what classification means, what the output looks like, or how to use the tool correctly. It is highly incomplete for an agent to make an informed call.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptive comments for each parameter, so the schema already provides the meaning. The tool description adds no extra parameter context, aligning with the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 uses the vague verb 'show' and resource 'request' without specifying what kind of classification or how it relates to the parameters. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like domain-shape or file-path-ok, and the word 'compatibility' is never explained, making it nearly a tautology.

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. No context, criteria, or exclusions are provided, leaving an agent without any basis to choose it over the many similar shape/check tools.

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