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

With no annotations, the description correctly discloses the key behavioral trait 'No disk access,' which signals no filesystem side effects and no real existence check. However, it does not state return type/format, error behavior, or what 'safe' means, and it does not mention any side effects from the many accepted parameters.

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 core purpose is front-loaded and the safety boundary follows immediately. Every word 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?

For a no-annotation, no-output-schema tool with nine optional parameters, this terse description is not complete enough: it leaves the return value unspecified, the 'safe' criteria undefined, and the relationship between the path check and the other schema properties unexplained.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter, and the path parameter is clear. The description adds no new parameter semantics and, more importantly, does not explain why the schema exposes eight other optional fields (url, feed, json, zone, etc.) for a tool that claims to check only a path.

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 clear verb and resource: check whether a path looks safe, with the important boundary 'No disk access.' It distinguishes broadly from URL/domain sibling tools but leaves the exact definition of 'safe' implicit, so it stops short of 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?

The only usage hint is 'No disk access,' which implies a lightweight syntactic check rather than an existence/permission check, but it never says when to prefer this tool over siblings like normalize-url, domain-shape, or wiki-title-ok, nor gives exclusions.

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