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

With no annotations provided, 'No disk access' is a valuable behavioral guarantee and partially carries the disclosure burden. Still, the description does not state what the tool returns, what criteria define 'safe', or whether an unsafe path results in a throw or a boolean response.

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 with no filler; the core purpose is front-loaded and the operational caveat follows immediately. Every word contributes.

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 no output schema and no annotations, yet the description does not explain return values or success/failure behavior. The schema's nine unrelated parameters also require clarification about which parameter to populate, making the definition incomplete for safe autonomous invocation.

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?

All schema parameters have descriptions, so schema coverage is 100%; the 'path' parameter is documented as 'File path to check'. The description adds no parameter-specific guidance, and the presence of many unrelated parameters like url, city, json, and zone creates ambiguity that the description does not resolve.

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 whether a path looks safe') and the resource (path), while the second sentence adds an important boundary ('No disk access'). It does not explicitly contrast with sibling URL-checking tools, but the path focus and no-disk guarantee make the purpose reasonably distinct.

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 usage context is implied: call this when you need a path safety check that must not touch the filesystem. However, it gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance and does not name alternatives such as browser-url-ok or normalize-url for URL-based checks.

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