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

The description discloses that 'No disk access' occurs, which is a useful safety hint. However, it does not reveal what happens with the other parameters (e.g., whether url or city are validated or discarded) or the return format. With no annotations, the description carries the burden but only partially fulfills it.

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 a single, concise sentence with no waste. However, it is under-specified, omitting the tool's broader parameter scope. It is not overly verbose, but the brevity comes at the cost of essential information.

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 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It only addresses 'path' and leaves the other eight parameters unexplained, so an agent cannot infer what the tool does with url, city, feed, or json. This is a significant gap for a multi-purpose validator.

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 already has a meaningful description. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it only references 'path' and ignores the other eight parameters. Since the schema covers them, the baseline 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.' However, the input schema reveals 8 other parameters (url, city, feed, etc.) that are not mentioned, making the actual scope ambiguous. It also does not differentiate from sibling tools that perform shape checks (e.g., browser-url-ok, domain-shape).

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description offers no context for selecting this tool over siblings like browser-url-ok or domain-shape, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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