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

With no annotations present, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose 'No disk access,' which is a useful guarantee, but it does not describe the return value, failure behavior, or what happens when non-path parameters such as json or query are supplied.

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 and front-loads the core action ('Check whether a path looks safe') before adding the safety qualifier. No filler or redundant wording is present, though the brevity leaves the large parameter surface unexplained.

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 high parameter count, absent output schema, and no annotations, the description is not complete enough for an agent to confidently call the tool. It does not explain what 'looks safe' means, what is returned, or how the unrelated parameters are handled, so important context is missing.

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 descriptions cover all nine parameters, so the description adds little beyond them. It only reinforces the 'path' parameter; several other schema descriptions (e.g., 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite') appear unrelated to the stated path-checking purpose, but the description itself does not clarify or worsen their meaning.

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 action and subject: 'Check whether a path looks safe. No disk access.' However, the schema exposes nine unrelated parameters (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, zone, query), so the stated purpose is not aligned with the full input surface and leaves the tool's actual behavior ambiguous.

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 about when to prefer this tool over sibling tools such as browser-url-ok, domain-shape, or normalize-url, and it does not explain the intended calling context or prerequisites. The only usable hint is 'No disk access,' which is a constraint rather than a use-case guideline.

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