classify_spotify_uris

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does useful work: it promises a purely local pass with no network calls and indicates per-row issue reporting. It does not detail output order, non-destructiveness, or failure behavior, but for a batch classifier these are not critical omissions.

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?

A single dense sentence front-loads the action and output categories, with the local/no-network qualifier appended via an em dash. Every clause earns its place with no fluff.

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 one-parameter, schema-covered batch utility with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, what it returns conceptually, and a key behavioral constraint (no network). The main gap is not naming the alternative URI helper tools that perform overlapping classification, but this is not required for calling it correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context that each array element is a 'reference' and that output is per row, but it does not need to elaborate on the single `uris` parameter because the schema already documents 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?

States a specific action ('Classify each reference in a batch') and enumerates the outputs (reference form, entity kind, canonical-form verdict, per-row issues), making the tool's role distinct from parse/validate/canonicalize siblings. The 'one local pass, no network calls' clause further disambiguates it from network-backed catalog utilities.

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 'batch' and 'one local pass, no network calls' phrasing gives clear context for when to choose this tool over network-backed lookups, and the output list implies a classification/validation purpose. It does not explicitly name alternative URI utilities or state when not to use them, so it stops short of a 5.

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