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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose a key behavior, 'No disk access,' which signals a non-filesystem, purely syntactic check. However, it does not describe return values, error behavior, which parameters are accepted, or whether other side effects exist.

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, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the key limitation. There is no filler; each sentence earns its place. The brevity is only acceptable if the schema and annotations supply the remaining context, which they only partially do.

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, no required fields, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description only explains a path-shape check. It does not say what the tool returns, how to choose among the many parameters, or what 'safe' means. Schema property descriptions help, but the overall call contract remains incomplete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but every parameter already has a one-line schema description, including 'File path to check' for the path parameter. The description's path focus maps reasonably to that parameter, so no additional compensation is required.

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' and adds the important scoping side-effect 'No disk access.' It is distinguishable from URL/disk-access siblings, though 'safe' is not defined and the input schema exposes nine unrelated parameters, making the description narrower than the apparent parameter surface.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, and no alternative tools are named. 'No disk access' implies it is for shape-only checks, but the agent is not told when to prefer this over normalize-url, browser-url-ok, or filesystem tools, nor what conditions make it inappropriate.

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