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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'No disk access,' which is a safety guarantee, but fails to explain the return value, what 'safe' means, or how the other parameters are handled. The schema mentions many fields are discarded, but the description omits this context entirely.

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 concise (two sentences) and front-loads the core action, but it is under-specified. It omits essential details about the tool's behavior and scope, making it more under-specified than appropriately concise.

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?

Given the tool has 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how it validates each input type, or when to use it relative to siblings, leaving an agent unable to use it correctly.

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?

While the schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all 9 parameters, the tool description adds no parameter-level insight and even creates confusion by focusing solely on 'path' while the schema includes many unrelated fields. It does not clarify which parameter is the primary one or how the others relate to the stated purpose, so it fails to add meaning 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 a clear verb and resource ('Check whether a path looks safe') and a safety note about no disk access, so it is not a tautology. However, the input schema includes eight other parameters (ref, url, city, etc.) that are unrelated to path checking, making the tool's actual scope ambiguous. It also does not differentiate itself from sibling shape-check tools like browser-url-ok or 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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling shape-check tools. It does not mention alternatives, conditions for use, or when not to use it, leaving the agent without routing information.

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