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

With no annotations, the description explicitly discloses 'No disk access', which is a useful safety-related behavioral trait. However, it does not explain what 'looks safe' means, whether it returns a boolean, or what side-effect-free guarantees exist beyond the disk-access disclaimer.

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 short and front-loaded: the main purpose appears first, followed by a key safety note. Every sentence earns its place, though the extreme brevity may undersell the tool's actual scope given the nine-parameter schema.

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?

Despite 100% schema coverage, the description is not contextually complete for a tool with nine parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. It does not explain why parameters like city, json, and zone belong in a path-safety check, nor what the caller should expect as a result.

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 all nine parameters are already documented in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the 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', which distinguishes it from URL-focused siblings like browser-url-ok and playwright-url-ok. However, the input schema accepts many unrelated parameters (url, city, json, zone, query), creating some ambiguity about whether the tool is truly path-specific or a general shape-checker.

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 usage context is implied: use this tool when you need to verify whether a path is safe. There is no explicit guidance about when to prefer it over sibling shape-checking tools or when not to use it, so it stays at the 'implied usage' level.

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