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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a meaningful non-obvious behavior: no disk access. But it does not explain what 'safe' means, whether the path is normalized, what happens on invalid input, or what the tool returns.

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 short sentences carry distinct information: the tool's purpose and its disk-access guarantee. There is no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. This is appropriately concise for what it does communicate.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description does not state what the tool returns (e.g., boolean, status, error). It also does not clarify which of the nine schema parameters are relevant or why unrelated parameters like 'city' and 'feed' are accepted. For a tool with multiple siblings and a broad optional schema, this is incomplete.

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%, and each parameter has its own description, including notes like 'discarded after the shape check' and 'File path to check; no disk access.' The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, but the schema already provides enough for the agent to understand the individual parameters. The presence of many unrelated parameters is confusing, though each is individually described.

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 and resource: 'Check whether a path looks safe.' The addition 'No disk access' distinguishes it from tools that would touch the filesystem. However, 'safe' is somewhat vague, and the input schema lists many unrelated parameters (url, city, feed, host, json, zone, query), which muddies the tool's actual 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?

The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any sibling tools, exclusions, or conditions such as 'use this for local paths, not URLs.' The 'No disk access' hint implies a lightweight shape check, but the agent is left to infer the appropriate context.

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