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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral transparency burden. 'No disk access' is a meaningful safety disclosure beyond the name, indicating no filesystem side effects. However, it does not explain the return value, error behavior, or what 'looks safe' covers.

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 only two short sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and 'No disk access' follows as a key behavioral note. Every word contributes value.

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 schema being self-explanatory for individual parameters, the tool accepts nine optional parameters and has no output schema or annotations. The description does not explain why unrelated parameters exist, whether 'path' is effectively required, or what response the caller should expect, making correct invocation underspecified.

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 schema already documents every parameter, including 'path' as 'File path to check'. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, matching the baseline score of 3.

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 a specific action and resource: 'Check whether a path looks safe.' This is not a tautology and it distinguishes path-checking from the many sibling URL/title/shape validators. The main ambiguity is what exactly 'safe' means, which prevents a 5.

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 implies the tool is for validating path safety without touching disk, which is a reasonable usage cue. However, it does not name any alternatives or state when not to use it, so the guidance is only implicit rather than explicit.

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