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

The description discloses one key behavioral trait: 'No disk access.' Since no annotations are provided, this is the only behavioral info the agent gets. It does not mention return format, whether it is read-only (though implied by 'check'), or any side effects. It adds some value but leaves much unstated for a tool that likely returns a boolean or validation result.

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 concise (one sentence), which is good for front-loading the purpose. However, it omits critical context about the tool's broader applicability given the diverse schema. It is not verbose, but it also does not earn its place because it misses important information that would help an agent decide when to use it.

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 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description only addresses the path parameter and provides no information about the other parameters, expected return values, or any conditions under which the check fails. For an agent to correctly invoke this tool with any of the other fields, the description is inadequate.

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 schema descriptions are 100% complete, covering all nine parameters individually. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides; it merely reiterates the 'no disk access' note for the path field. With full schema coverage, this meets the baseline but does not go further to explain interactions or edge cases.

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.' It is specific and matches the tool name, distinguishing it from URL or domain checkers. However, it only mentions paths, while the input schema includes eight other unrelated parameters (ref, url, city, etc.), which suggests the tool may have broader scope not captured here, reducing clarity.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling shape-checkers (domain-shape, browser-url-ok, etc.). The description does not state what makes this tool the right choice for a path-safety check, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives. The agent is left to infer that it is for path safety only, but the schema hints at other uses.

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