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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds one useful note ('No disk access'), but it omits critical behavior: what the return value looks like, whether the tool discards input data (which the schema hints at for some params), and what constitutes a 'safe' path. This is minimal disclosure for a tool that presumably has more complex behavior.

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 (two short sentences) and front-loaded, which is structurally fine. However, it is so terse that it sacrifices necessary information; it reads more like an under-specified stub than a deliberate, efficient description. It earns a middle score for brevity but loses points for leaving out essential context.

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?

For a tool with nine optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is wholly inadequate. It does not explain how the parameters interact, what the tool actually checks for beyond paths, what output the agent can expect, or any edge cases. An agent would be unable to use this tool correctly based on the description alone, especially given the mismatch between the name and the broad schema.

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, but the description adds nothing about parameters and actively misleads by only mentioning 'path' while the schema lists nine parameters. It does not clarify that the tool may behave differently depending on which parameter is supplied, nor does it explain the meaning of the other fields beyond their schema descriptions. The description fails to compensate for the schema's breadth and creates confusion.

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 clear action ('check') and resource ('path') and adds a safety qualifier, but it is vague about what 'safe' means and gives no indication that the tool accepts nine unrelated parameters. It fails to differentiate from sibling shape-checkers like browser-url-ok or domain-shape, and the schema's extra fields (ref, url, city, etc.) are entirely unexplained, making the actual purpose 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus any of the many sibling shape-checking tools. No conditions, exclusions, or alternative tools are mentioned. The only additional note, 'No disk access,' is a behavioral fact, not usage guidance.

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