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

The description discloses that there is no disk access, which is a positive behavior detail. However, it does not explain what 'looks safe' means (e.g., traversal checks, existence), what the return value is, or any side effects. With no annotations, this is insufficient.

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 very brief and to the point, using two short sentences. It is well-structured and easy to read.

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 description lacks critical context: it doesn't mention what the tool returns, how it handles various inputs, or why the schema includes eight unrelated parameters. It is not complete for a tool with this complexity.

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 tool description doesn't reference any of the nine parameters. The schema provides descriptions for each, but the 'path' parameter is the only one aligned with the tool's purpose. The other parameters (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, zone, query) are unrelated and unexplained by the description, causing confusion about their role.

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 the tool's purpose: checking if a path looks safe, and explicitly notes no disk access. This is specific and unambiguous, though it doesn't mention sibling tools to differentiate, the purpose is distinct enough.

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 provides minimal guidance on when to use this tool. It only mentions 'no disk access' as a safety property, but doesn't explain scenarios where this check is preferred over other tools like 'browser-url-ok' or 'fetch-status'. No alternatives or conditions are given.

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