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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It states only 'no disk access', leaving the agent without information about output format, side effects, edge cases, or the meaning of 'safe'. Given the tool has many parameters and no output schema, this is a significant behavioral gap.

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: two sentences with no wasted words, and the key behavioral fact ('no disk access') is front-loaded. It can be understood at a single glance, even though the brevity may under-serve other dimensions.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and a nine-parameter input schema, yet the description says nothing about return values, accepted parameter combinations, or which parameter actually represents the path. The agent will likely be confused about how to properly invoke the tool.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning and does not even indicate which of the nine parameters is the relevant 'path' parameter, despite the tool name and description focusing on it. The schema descriptions themselves are the only source of parameter semantics.

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 a specific verb ('check') and resource ('a path'), and adds a key safety property ('no disk access'). It distinguishes the tool as a path-safety check, but it does not differentiate from similar validation tools (e.g., browser-url-ok, normalize-url), and the schema's nine unrelated parameters create ambiguity about the actual scope.

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 the tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The only hint is 'no disk access', which is insufficient for an agent to decide whether to invoke this tool instead of a sibling tool.

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