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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. The phrase 'No disk access' is a meaningful disclosure that the tool is a static check and cannot verify file existence. However, it does not explain what 'safe' means, whether the result is a boolean or object, 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 tightly written sentences with no wasted words: the purpose comes first and the key behavioral caveat ('No disk access') sits right behind it. Nothing extraneous is present.

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?

For a tool with no output schema, no annotations, and a nine-parameter schema that is a poor match for the stated purpose, this two-sentence description is insufficient. It omits return-value semantics, the definition of 'safe', and any explanation of the seemingly unrelated parameters like city, feed, zone, or query.

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 even without parameter info in the description. The schema itself documents each parameter, including 'path: File path to check'. Still, the nine-parameter schema is strikingly heterogeneous and the description adds nothing to clarify that only 'path' is evidently relevant.

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 action ('Check whether a path looks safe') and a resource, plus the useful constraint 'No disk access'. It is clear on its own, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling 'xxx-ok' tools; the tool name and the word 'path' carry that burden.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling shape-checkers such as browser-url-ok or wiki-title-ok. It does not state conditions, exclusions, or alternatives; the only usage signal is inferred from the tool's purpose.

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