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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses 'No disk access' but says nothing about what happens with the other 8 parameters, whether any network calls occur, or whether the tool has side effects. Given 9 optional parameters, the behavioral description is critically incomplete and does not clarify the tool's behavior for non-path inputs.

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 short (two sentences), which is concise, but it is under-specified. The tool accepts 9 parameters, yet the description only covers one. The brevity sacrifices necessary information, making it unsuitable for agent comprehension. It does not front-load key details about the other accepted inputs.

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's apparent complexity (9 optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is grossly insufficient. It fails to explain how the tool handles the non-path parameters, what 'safe' means, or what constitutes a valid call. The lack of required parameters and ambiguous scope leaves an agent guessing whether it can even use this tool for its apparent purpose.

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 cover 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema; it only restates 'no disk access' for the path parameter, which the schema already includes. It does not explain relationships among parameters or usage examples, so it does not elevate above the baseline.

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 specific verb ('Check') and resource ('whether a path looks safe'), and adds a behavioral qualifier ('No disk access'). However, it only refers to the 'path' parameter while the input schema lists 8 other unrelated parameters (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, zone, query), none of which are mentioned. This creates confusion about the tool's actual scope, so the purpose is not fully clear despite the concise core statement.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the 26 sibling tools (e.g., browser-url-ok, domain-shape, validate-json). It does not mention any alternatives, exclusions, or contextual cues. The only implicit hint is 'path' from the schema, but the description itself offers no selection guidance.

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