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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'No disk access' is a valuable disclosure indicating the tool cannot verify existence or permissions. However, it does not explain what 'safe' means, what return value the agent should expect, or whether specific path patterns are rejected, leaving important behavior undisclosed.

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 very concise and front-loaded, with no filler words. However, it is slightly under-specified for a tool with no output schema, no annotations, and a nine-parameter interface, so it is not fully 'appropriately sized' despite its brevity.

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 tool has no output schema and no annotations, and the description does not define 'safe,' state the return type, or clarify how the non-path parameters fit the tool's purpose. Sibling validators are not referenced, so an agent cannot distinguish this from URL, title, or JSON validators. The 100% schema coverage helps with parameter meaning but does not compensate for the missing behavioral and usage context.

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; each property already has a meaningful schema-level description. The tool description adds no extra detail about path format or how the other eight optional parameters relate to this tool, relying entirely on the schema.

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 action ('check') and a specific resource ('path'), with 'looks safe' and 'No disk access' clarifying this is a shape-only validation rather than a filesystem operation. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling validators like browser-url-ok or wiki-title-ok, and 'safe' is left undefined, so it stops short of a top score.

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?

No guidance is given about when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as browser-url-ok, normalize-url, validate-json, or wiki-title-ok. The only implicit cue is the word 'path,' which is too weak to reliably route an agent. There are no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool mentions.

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