classify_product

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions return values (suggested class, conformity path, fines exposure, next steps) but does not state whether the tool is read-only, whether it requires authentication, or any side effects. The lack of detail on behavior limits transparency.

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 very short (two sentences) and front-loads the purpose. It is efficient, but the returns section could be more structured. Overall, it is concise without unnecessary words.

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?

Given the tool has 6 parameters, 0% schema descriptions, no annotations, and an output schema exists, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'CRA class hierarchy' is, how the parameters influence classification, or any usage context. The output schema existence slightly reduces the burden, but the description still lacks crucial information for proper 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, meaning no parameter descriptions are provided. The tool description also does not explain the meaning of any parameters beyond their names. For example, 'api_key' and 'product_description' are self-explanatory, but 'intended_for_consumer_use' and similar booleans lack context. The description fails to add value over the schema.

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 clearly states the verb 'Classify' and the resource 'product with digital elements (PDE)' into 'CRA class hierarchy'. It is distinct from sibling tools like audit_essential_requirements, generate_doc_template, and sign_classification_cert, which focus on auditing, document generation, and certification.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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