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

The description explicitly states 'No disk access,' which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose what the tool returns (e.g., boolean, error), what 'safe' means, or any side effects. With no annotations provided, this is insufficient.

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 short sentence with no filler, front-loading the purpose and the key constraint. Every word earns its place.

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 9 optional parameters and no output schema, yet the description is minimal. It does not explain why so many unrelated parameters exist (ref, url, city, feed, etc.), nor does it describe the return value or success criteria. An agent would be uncertain about how to invoke it correctly beyond the core path check.

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 input schema has descriptions for all 9 parameters, covering 100% of them. The description adds no extra meaning about parameters; it only mentions the path concept without detailing the others. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific resource ('a path'), and adds the important qualifier 'looks safe' and 'No disk access.' This distinguishes it from URL or domain checkers, though it does not explicitly name siblings.

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-checking tools (e.g., browser-url-ok, domain-shape, wiki-title-ok). The description offers no context about appropriate scenarios or exclusions.

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