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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose one key trait: 'No disk access,' signaling a pure syntactic/shape check with no filesystem side effects. But it does not define what 'safe' means, whether the path must exist, or what result is returned, and the schema implies behavior across many input types.

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 a single sentence with no filler, and the 'No disk access' qualifier earns its place by disclosing a critical behavioral boundary. It is appropriately front-loaded and easy to scan.

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?

This is a 9-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, yet the description is only one line. It fails to state return values, clarify what 'safe' means, explain how to choose among the many optional inputs, or account for url/city/zone/query being accepted by a tool named file-path-ok.

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; the schema already documents each parameter, including 'discarded after the shape check' for several. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level semantics and does not explain how the path parameter relates to the other eight parameters.

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 specific verb ('check') and resource ('path') and adds a useful qualifier ('looks safe'), so an agent can tell this is a path safety validator. However, it does not distinguish among sibling validators, and the input schema exposes nine unrelated optional properties (url, city, feed, host, json, zone, query), so the description captures only a fraction of the apparent scope.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus siblings such as domain-shape, browser-url-ok, or validate-json. The only implied usage is 'if you need to check a path without touching disk,' but no when-not conditions or alternative tools are mentioned.

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