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

The sentence 'No disk access' is a valuable explicit behavioral guarantee that goes beyond the name, indicating a read-only, side-effect-free check. However, with no annotations, the description still fails to disclose return values, error behavior, or how 'safe' is determined. It is partially transparent but not complete.

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 action is front-loaded and the key constraint is stated immediately after. Every word contributes meaning.

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 multiple schema properties, no output schema, and no annotations, but the description only covers the path aspect and the no-disk-access guarantee. It omits return-value semantics, the definition of 'safe', and the purpose of the unrelated accepted parameters, leaving the agent without enough context to invoke it confidently.

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 discard behavior, warranting a baseline of 3. The description adds little beyond emphasizing 'path' and does not clarify why the schema also accepts url, city, feed, host, json, and query, which creates some semantic mismatch.

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?

States a specific action ('Check') and resource ('a path'), plus a useful constraint ('No disk access'). It is distinguishable from URL-oriented siblings like browser-url-ok and normalize-url. However, 'safe' is left undefined, so the exact criterion is ambiguous.

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 gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternatives. 'No disk access' implies a pure shape check rather than a filesystem check, but it does not tell an agent when to choose this over related tools. Usage context must be inferred from the tool name alone.

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