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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses only that no disk access occurs, which is a useful safety trait. But it omits what the tool returns (boolean? error messages?), what constitutes a 'safe' path, and how it treats edge cases. For a pure validation tool, this is a significant 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no waste. However, it is too terse and skips essential context. It could be structured with a brief mention of scope or output while staying concise.

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 9 optional parameters and no output schema, this description is grossly inadequate. It does not explain the tool's behavior beyond a one-line check, does not clarify the role of the extra parameters, and provides no information about return values or error handling. An agent cannot reliably determine how to call this tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100% and each parameter has its own description, so the baseline is 3. However, the tool description adds nothing beyond the schema and creates confusion: the name and description center on 'path', yet the schema includes 8 other unrelated fields (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, zone, query). The description fails to explain how these parameters relate to the tool's purpose, leaving an agent uncertain which field to populate.

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 verb ('check') and resource ('path') and adds a key safety trait ('No disk access'). However, it does not define what 'safe' means (e.g., path traversal, absolute paths, symlinks) and does not distinguish this tool from sibling validators like browser-url-ok or figma-url-shape. The presence of 8 unrelated parameters in the schema further muddies the 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention contexts, exclusions, or related tools. An agent has no idea when to pick file-path-ok over other shape-checking tools in the sibling list.

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