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

The description discloses a key behavioral trait—'No disk access'—which is valuable because the tool has no annotations to cover side effects. However, it does not describe the return value, error behavior, or what 'safe' means, leaving part of the behavioral burden unaddressed.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the behavioral constraint follows immediately, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and nine optional parameters, the description is too sparse to fully support correct invocation. It does not state whether any parameter is required, what the tool returns, or what safety checks are performed, so an agent may not know how to call 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, and the 'path' parameter is appropriately described as 'File path to check.' The tool description itself does little to disambiguate which of the nine optional parameters apply to this tool, and many unrelated parameters (ref, city, feed) could mislead an agent.

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 action ('Check whether'), the object ('a path'), and the property ('looks safe'), while adding the useful constraint 'No disk access.' It does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools, but the tool name and path-specific scope make the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies when to use the tool: to validate whether a path is safe without touching the filesystem. However, it gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives, so the agent must infer usage from context and sibling names.

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