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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state a key behavior—'No disk access'—which signals no side effects on the filesystem. However, it does not describe the return value, what 'safe' means, or how invalid inputs are handled.

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?

Two terse sentences with no filler; the core purpose and the key limitation are both front-loaded. 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?

The tool exposes nine optional parameters spanning domains unrelated to paths, such as city, feed, host, json, zone, query, and ref, but the description never explains whether these are alternatives, ignored, or part of a broader validation contract. With no output schema and no annotations, an agent lacks enough information to invoke the tool confidently beyond the path parameter.

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 description adds little parameter-level meaning. The schema already documents each string parameter, including the path field, so the tool description does not need to repeat those details.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Check whether a path looks safe.' It also adds a valuable constraint with 'No disk access,' which clarifies this is a syntactic check rather than a filesystem probe. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools, but the path focus is clear enough to separate it from URL/title/shape siblings.

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 provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternative tool. 'No disk access' implies a safe syntactic-check context, but an agent must infer when this tool is the right choice versus a sibling like browser-url-ok or domain-shape.

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