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

With no annotations provided, the description is the only source of behavioral disclosure. It does state 'No disk access', which is a useful constraint, but it omits what happens with each parameter, whether multiple parameters can be supplied, or what the response looks like. This is a significant gap for a tool with such a broad schema.

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, which is structurally clean and front-loaded with the core idea. However, it is so sparse that it under-specifies the tool's capabilities, especially given the nine parameters. Conciseness is not an asset when it sacrifices necessary 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?

The tool has nine optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description addresses only 'path' and doesn't explain the role of the other eight parameters, nor any expected return values or error conditions. This is completely inadequate for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in any non-trivial scenario.

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?

Although schema description coverage is 100%, the descriptions are generic and unhelpful (e.g., 'discarded after the length check'). The tool description fails to explain how these parameters relate to the stated purpose of checking paths, leaving the agent confused about why fields like 'city' or 'feed' exist. The description adds no meaningful value beyond 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 states 'Check whether a path looks safe' which identifies a verb and resource, but it is vague about what 'safe' means and fails to differentiate from siblings like domain-shape or browser-url-ok. More critically, the schema lists nine unrelated parameters (city, feed, json, etc.), yet the description only mentions paths, making the actual scope misleading.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only mentions 'No disk access' as a constraint but doesn't state when to prefer this over sibling tools or what conditions disqualify it. Agents would have to infer usage from the terse text, which is insufficient.

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