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

The privacy statement 'No identifiers are retained' is a useful behavioral disclosure, and the schema descriptions for parameters extend it with individual discard and 'no disk access' promises. However, with no annotations, the description alone does not disclose operational side effects, authentication needs, return values, or whether any network activity occurs.

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?

Two sentences: the first states the purpose, the second adds a key privacy caveat. There is no fluff or redundancy, and the description stays appropriately short even with nine parameters.

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 is far too terse. It does not state whether one or more parameters should be supplied, what the classification categories are, what 'show' returns, or how to retrieve results. The agent cannot invoke this confidently from 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 schema already gives 100% coverage by describing all nine parameters (e.g., 'discarded after shape check', no disk access). The main description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond generic 'request' wording, so the baseline schema coverage justifies a score of 3.

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 specific action ('Show how this request is classified') but never explains what 'request' refers to or what classification means. It does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like browser-url-ok or normalize-url, and the tool name 'compatibility' only adds ambiguity.

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, when not to, or which sibling tool it replaces. The sentence 'Show how this request is classified' implies a diagnostic use case, but leaves the agent to guess what input to supply and what the classification output is for.

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