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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only says 'No disk access' and gives no detail about what 'looks safe' means, what the return value is, or whether it performs any validation beyond syntactic checks.

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-loaded, with the core action stated first and the key side-effect constraint ('No disk access') immediately after. It avoids unnecessary wording, though it could benefit from a little more detail.

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 that there are 9 parameters and no output schema, the description is too thin to provide complete context. It does not specify which parameter is the primary input, what the return shape looks like, or what criteria constitute a 'safe' path, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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?

Although every parameter has a description (100% coverage), most of them are irrelevant to the stated purpose (e.g., ref, url, city, feed, host, json, zone, query). Only 'path' directly matches the tool description, but the presence of many unrelated parameters creates confusion about which parameter should be used.

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 operation ('Check whether a path looks safe') and explicitly notes 'No disk access', which helps distinguish it as a static check. However, it doesn't specify what kind of path (file, URL, etc.) beyond the parameter context.

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 provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as browser-url-ok or normalize-url. The description does not mention use cases, prerequisites, or when it should not be used.

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