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

The description explicitly states 'No disk access,' which is a meaningful transparency note about a side effect (or lack thereof). However, it does not disclose whether the tool performs any other operations (e.g., network calls, file reads) or if there are any side effects on the system. Given the absence of annotations, this partial disclosure is helpful but not comprehensive.

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 concise, using two short sentences that convey the core purpose and a key limitation (no disk access). It is well-structured and easy to read. However, it omits critical information about parameter usage, but this does not detract from its succinctness.

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 description is incomplete for a tool with such a complex schema. It does not explain why unrelated parameters are present, nor does it specify the expected input format for the 'path' parameter or the output/return value. The lack of clarity about the tool's actual scope makes it difficult for an agent to use correctly without additional outside knowledge.

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 schema provides descriptions for all 9 parameters, achieving 100% coverage, but many of those parameters (url, city, feed, host, json, zone, query) are unrelated to checking a file path. The tool description does not clarify which parameters are relevant or how they are used, leaving the agent to guess. The parameter descriptions themselves are generic and do not clarify their role in the 'path safety' check.

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 action (check whether a path looks safe) and that no disk access is performed. However, the schema includes 9 unrelated parameters (e.g., url, city, feed, host, json, zone, query) making it ambiguous which parameter is actually used for the path check. The description does not specify that 'path' is the relevant parameter, reducing clarity for the agent.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative sibling tools (e.g., browser-url-ok, domain-shape, normalize-url). No prerequisites, limitations, or typical use cases are mentioned. The agent is left without context to decide if this tool is appropriate for a given task.

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