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

With annotations absent, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one important behavior, 'No disk access,' which is useful. But it omits what criteria determine a 'safe' path, what the return value looks like, and whether other parameters affect behavior.

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 intent is front-loaded. The 'No disk access' clause is a useful behavioral qualifier. It loses one point because the brevity sacrifices essential context that the schema and scope require.

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, no output schema, and multiple siblings, a two-sentence description is inadequate. It fails to explain what 'safe' means, which parameters are relevant, how results are returned, and when to choose this over related validators.

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, so each parameter is already documented. The description adds no parameter-level meaning and does not clarify why fields like url, city, feed, host, or json belong in a path-safety tool. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the documentation load.

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 clear action and resource: 'Check whether a path looks safe.' It is not a tautology and mentions a key constraint, 'No disk access.' However, it does not define what 'safe' means, and the 9-parameter input schema is misleadingly generic, making the tool's actual scope 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 implies this tool is for path safety validation, but provides no guidance on when to use it versus sibling tools like browser-url-ok, normalize-url, or validate-json. There are no when-to-use instructions, exclusions, or alternative routing cues.

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