classifier_score

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the use of a live classifier and the two operating modes. While it doesn't explicitly state that the operation is read-only or idempotent, the nature of scoring implies such. A slight gap is the lack of mention that results reflect a snapshot in time.

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?

Three sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second explains the two usage modes, and the third provides a reference. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description covers the two usage modes and parameter purposes. However, without an output schema, it could optionally mention the return format (e.g., a confidence score). Still, it is largely complete for a simple scoring tool with good parameter descriptions.

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%, but the description adds significant value by explaining the semantic difference between the two parameters (current snapshot vs. custom incident) and referencing the external feature list endpoint. This goes beyond the schema's property descriptions.

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 ('Score'), the resource ('a country or a custom feature payload'), and specifies the classifier version ('live v3 GradientBoosting'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like classifier_category or classifier_method by emphasizing the scoring function and custom feature payload capability.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: use country_code for current snapshot, features for custom incident. The description directs users to an external endpoint for the feature list, effectively telling when to use each parameter and where to find prerequisites.

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