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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully states that no disk access occurs, but it does not define what 'looks safe' means, what checks are performed, or whether the tool returns a boolean, throws, or produces a detailed report.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the key behavioral constraint ('No disk access') is included without redundancy.

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 annotations, no output schema, and a nine-property schema, yet the description only addresses 'path'. This leaves the agent uncertain about return values, which parameter is relevant, and how to handle the other eight properties, making the definition materially incomplete for reliable 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds nothing beyond the schema about parameter semantics and does not clarify why the schema includes many unrelated parameters such as url, city, feed, and query.

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 uses a specific verb ('Check') and identifies the resource ('a path') and the core concern (safety). It clearly distinguishes this from URL, domain, and title checks by name and wording, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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 phrase 'No disk access' implies a validation-only, non-destructive check, which guides usage context. However, there is no explicit statement about when to use this tool versus alternatives like normalize-url or browser-url-ok, so the agent must infer the intended use case.

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