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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does add a key behavioral fact: 'No disk access' clarifies this is a lexical/shape check rather than a real filesystem operation. It does not describe return values, error handling, or what happens when multiple schema parameters are supplied, so it is adequate but not rich.

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 with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the important caveat 'No disk access.'

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 the short description, the tool has nine optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description does not explain what 'safe' means, which parameter to pass, or what result is returned, so an agent has too little context to invoke it confidently.

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 description itself adds no parameter detail, but the schema already documents each property, including the relevant 'path: File path to check.' The mismatch between the path-focused description and the nine unrelated optional parameters is not resolved in the description.

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 operation and resource: 'Check whether a path looks safe.' This helps distinguish it from URL-oriented siblings like browser-url-ok and normalize-url. However, it does not define what 'safe' means, and the schema lists many unrelated parameters, so the differentiation is only implicit.

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 use this tool versus alternatives, which parameters are appropriate, or what conditions favor it. The only usage hint is 'No disk access,' implying a side-effect-free check, but there are no explicit exclusions or alternative tool names.

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