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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'No disk access' is a valuable explicit guarantee that this is a pure lexical check, but the description does not disclose what 'safe' means, what the return value is, or possible failure modes.

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 convey the core purpose and the key safety behavior with no filler. The most important phrase 'Check whether a path looks safe' is front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and nine optional parameters, the description is too thin to be complete. It does not explain what a 'safe' path looks like, how the result is returned, or which fields are actually used, leaving meaningful ambiguity for an agent.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides for 'path,' and it does not address the other eight optional parameters in the schema.

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 names a specific verb and resource: it checks whether a path looks safe. It also distinguishes itself from URL-focused sibling tools by clarifying this is about a file path and adds a behavioral boundary with 'No disk access.'

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like browser-url-ok or normalize-url. The phrase 'No disk access' hints that it is a pre-check, but it does not state when it should be preferred or what conditions make it insufficient.

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