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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that no disk access occurs, which is a key safety property, but it says nothing about side effects for the other parameters (e.g., some are 'discarded after the check' per schema but not in the description) or about return values. The single behavioral fact is useful but incomplete.

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 sentences) and front-loads the core purpose and a key safety caveat. It avoids verbosity, but it is arguably under-specified given the tool's 9 parameters, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 tool has 9 parameters but the description only addresses the path parameter. The presence of ref, url, city, feed, etc. is unexplained, and the description does not clarify whether the tool validates any of these or only path. With no output schema and no annotations, an agent would be uncertain about return behavior. The description is incomplete for such a complex 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 each parameter has a description in the schema. The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 applies because the schema already documents parameters adequately, though the description does not clarify how the unrelated parameters relate to the path 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 tool checks whether a path looks safe and explicitly notes 'No disk access,' which differentiates it from disk-accessing operations. However, it doesn't mention the other 8 parameters (ref, url, city, etc.) that are present in the schema, so the purpose is clear but the scope is confusingly broader than implied.

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 the many sibling tools like browser-url-ok, domain-shape, or wiki-title-ok. It only states a safety fact ('No disk access') but does not explain when a path check is appropriate or when to prefer another tool.

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