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

The phrase 'No disk access' usefully discloses a safety behavior, but with no annotations the description still does not fully carry the burden: it doesn't explain what 'safe' means, what output to expect, or whether any other side effects occur.

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, direct sentence with no fluff. The core action and a key behavioral guarantee are front-loaded.

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 being concise, the tool has nine optional parameters and no output schema. The description does not explain which parameter to use, what a safe path result means, or what shape the response takes, so it is not fully self-sufficient.

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 already describes all nine parameters individually, but the tool description only relates to 'path' and does not clarify how the other eight parameters (url, city, feed, etc.) fit into checking a path. This mismatch adds confusion rather than 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 clearly states the action and object: 'Check whether a path looks safe. No disk access.' It distinguishes itself from sibling URL or name checkers, though the meaning of 'safe' is left somewhat undefined.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool instead of similar siblings like browser-url-ok, normalize-url, or wiki-title-ok. It also doesn't clarify which of the many optional parameters should be supplied.

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