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

The description discloses a key behavioral trait (no disk access), and the schema descriptions note that several values are 'discarded after check,' implying no side effects. However, there is no mention of return values or failure behavior, and no annotations are present to fill the gap.

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 very short and to the point, but it omits important context such as what constitutes a 'safe' path and how the tool relates to its sibling validators. The briefness is not backed by sufficient 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?

There is no output schema, example, or explanation of how the input parameters map to the tool's purpose. The tool appears complete only for a minimal 'check path' use case, but the mismatch between the description and the input schema leaves significant gaps.

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 all 9 parameters have descriptions, most are unrelated to checking a file path (e.g., ref, url, city, feed, host, json, zone, query) and their descriptions do not explain how they contribute to the tool's purpose. This creates confusion rather than providing meaningful semantics.

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's function: checking whether a path looks safe, and explicitly notes no disk access. However, 'safe' is somewhat vague and the input schema includes many unrelated properties, which slightly muddies the core purpose.

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 on when to use this tool versus the many sibling shape/validation tools (e.g., browser-url-ok, domain-shape). The only behavioral hint is 'no disk access,' which is not a usage guideline.

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