classification

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds output semantics (children carry dataset-entry counts, plus a descendant count), which is useful context, but says nothing about truncation behavior, ordering, or error cases for unknown names.

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 front-loaded sentence that leads with the resource and then enumerates outputs. No filler, no restatement of the tool name or annotations.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description is not obliged to explain return values, and the annotations cover the safety profile. However, the silent default truncation of children at 40 (adjustable via max_children) is a real gap an agent needs in order to interpret results 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 only 50%: 'language' is documented in the schema, but 'max_children' (default 40, range 0-200) is undocumented in both schema and description. The description mentions neither the parameter nor the fact that child lists are truncated by default, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 names a specific resource (Glottolog classification) and enumerates the outputs: lineage, children with entry counts, sisters, and descendant count. That is far more informative than the bare tool name 'classification'. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like language_profile or find_language, which would be needed for a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied by the listed return contents: an agent can infer this is the tool for taxonomic/tree questions. There is no explicit 'use this instead of language_profile' or any stated precondition, so the routing decision 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.