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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and 'No disk access' is a useful behavioral disclosure that sets expectations about side effects. However, it does not explain what 'safe' means, whether it returns a boolean or errors on unsafe paths, or how the path is validated, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the key behavioral caveat ('No disk access') follows immediately. 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 has nine optional parameters and no output schema, yet the description only explains a path check and gives one behavioral constraint. It does not clarify why the schema contains many seemingly unrelated fields (ref, url, city, feed, etc.) or which parameters should be provided, so an agent could find it under-specified.

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 little parameter-level meaning beyond naming 'path', but the schema already documents each parameter individually (e.g., 'File path to check'), so the description does not need to compensate much.

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 clearly states the action ('check') and the target resource ('a path'), and the tool name reinforces the purpose as a path-safety validator. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like browser-url-ok or wiki-title-ok, but the 'path' scope is unambiguous enough.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. 'No disk access' implies a syntactic or safety check rather than a filesystem existence check, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context, and no sibling tools are mentioned.

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