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

The description discloses one important behavioral trait—'No disk access'—which is meaningful because there are no annotations and it tells the agent the call has no filesystem side effects. However, it does not describe the return value, error behavior, or what 'looks safe' means beyond a syntactic check. Given no annotations, the behavioral burden is only partially met.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the purpose is front-loaded before the safety note. For the core message it is appropriately concise; omitted guidance is penalized in 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?

With 9 optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this minimal description leaves substantial gaps: it does not specify which parameter(s) to provide, what the result looks like, or how this differs from sibling URL/path checkers. The schema provides some field-level help, but the definition as a whole is not complete for reliable invocation.

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 does not add parameter-level detail beyond the word 'path', but the schema already documents each field, including which are discarded. It does little to resolve why eight unrelated fields exist on a path-checker, but it does not misstate them.

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 uses a specific verb ('Check'), a clear resource ('path'), and a qualifier ('looks safe') that identifies a shape-only validation. It is distinguishable from URL/domain/wiki sibling tools by subject matter, though it does not explicitly call out any sibling. The broad input schema with unrelated params slightly muddies the picture, but the stated purpose remains clear.

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 sentence explains when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as normalize-url, browser-url-ok, or wiki-title-ok. 'No disk access' implies a safe read-only check, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance or named alternatives. The only usage signal is inferable from the tool name and first clause.

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