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

The description discloses one important behavioral trait: 'No disk access.' Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does provide some safety-relevant context. However, it does not explain how safety is determined, whether the path is merely shape-checked, or what the tool returns.

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 purpose comes first, and the critical 'No disk access' qualifier is included as a separate, earned sentence. Nothing here is wasted.

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 a surprisingly broad input schema with seven unrelated properties, no output schema, and no annotations. The description does not explain which parameter the agent should supply, what result format is returned, or how the operation differs from similar sibling checks. This leaves a significant completeness gap.

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 already documents all seven parameters, so schema coverage is high. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond reinforcing the path-related purpose. This meets the baseline for tools where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Check whether a path looks safe.' It distinguishes the tool from URL- or domain-focused siblings by focusing on file paths. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools or clarify what 'safe' means, so it stops short of a perfect score.

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 explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like browser-url-ok or domain-shape. The phrase 'No disk access' hints at a use case, but it is not framed as a selection criterion and no alternative tools are mentioned.

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