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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. 'No disk access' is a useful non-destructive guarantee, but the description does not disclose the return value, what 'safe' criteria are checked, or whether it ignores unrelated parameters. This is partial transparency, not full.

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 wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed immediately by the key behavioral qualifier '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?

For a tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is under-specified. An agent still does not know the return format, which parameter(s) to provide, what criteria determine 'safe,' or how the many schema properties relate to the tool's actual purpose.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, including 'File path to check' for the path parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the idea that the check is syntactic/shape-only, but it does not clarify why the schema contains many unrelated parameters such as url, city, feed, and host.

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 added 'No disk access' distinguishes it from filesystem-existence checks. However, it never defines what 'safe' means, so the purpose is clear but not fully precise.

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 this is a lightweight, shape-only validation tool because it explicitly says 'No disk access,' but it does not name alternatives or state when not to use it. Sibling tools like browser-url-ok and normalize-url hint at related URL-checking tools, but no explicit routing guidance is provided.

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