分类

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

Because no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of describing behavior, and it does this well by describing the return shape (0-based choice index, label, confidence) and the failure mode (an explicit error when the service is unavailable). It omits operational details such as latency, determinism, and authentication, and it never explicitly says that the call is side-effect-free, so it is strong but not complete.

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?

It is three tight clauses covering when to use, when not to use, and what is returned, in a front-loaded order with zero filler. Every sentence carries decision-relevant information.

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 3-parameter tool, an output schema exists, and the description even goes beyond it by covering the failure mode. The remaining gap is that without annotations, the description does not explicitly state the safety profile (side-effect-free) or whether the call is deterministic and how long it takes.

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 still adds real meaning by tying the returned 0-based index to the order of the supplied labels, which tells the agent that label ordering matters. It adds nothing about the optional server override beyond what the schema already states.

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 verb and resource: mapping a piece of state/context onto one of several known labels, with concrete examples (intent classification, type recognition). It also names the siblings it is not (route, score), so an agent can distinguish it without opening a schema.

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?

It gives explicit guidance on when to use the tool (classification into a fixed label set) and when not to use it, naming both the conditions and the alternatives: when labels are unknown or not fixed, use route; when you need to score the same object on multiple dimensions, use score. Nothing is left to inference.

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