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

With no annotations present, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. 'No disk access' is a genuinely useful trait, making clear this is a pure syntactic check. However, it does not describe what 'safe' means, what the return value is, or whether other side effects exist. It is adequate but incomplete.

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, both earning their place. The core action is front-loaded and the side-effect note is valuable. There is no filler or repetition.

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, no annotations, and nine optional parameters, yet the description explains neither the return value nor the meaning of 'safe.' It also fails to address which parameter matters or why the other schema fields exist. 'No disk access' helps, but the overall definition leaves too much to inference.

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 each parameter is already documented. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema and only references the concept of a path. It does not help disambiguate the many unrelated optional parameters, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb and resource: 'Check whether a path looks safe.' The phrase 'No disk access' adds a useful boundary. However, the input schema contains many unrelated properties such as url, city, feed, host, json, zone, and query, so the description does not clarify that only path is the relevant input; this creates some ambiguity.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus sibling tools like browser-url-ok, wiki-title-ok, or domain-shape. 'No disk access' is a behavioral note, not a usage guideline. The description should state that this is for lexical path safety checks, not URL or hostname validation.

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