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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose a key behavior: 'No disk access,' which tells the agent the check is purely syntactic and side-effect-free. It does not explain what 'safe' means, what the return value looks like, or whether it normalizes or just validates, so transparency is only partial.

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?

Two short sentences, no filler, and the primary behavior plus the safety caveat are front-loaded. Every clause earns its place.

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?

Despite high schema coverage, the description omits the output contract (e.g., boolean result), what 'safe' means, and how the many unrelated optional parameters relate to the path check. With no annotations and no output schema, the agent is left with insufficient operational context.

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; all nine optional parameters already have individual descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter semantics of its own and does not even indicate that `path` is the operative parameter among the many unrelated parameters.

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 specific action ('Check whether a path looks safe') and resource ('path'), and the 'No disk access' addition clarifies the scope. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling validators such as browser-url-ok or wiki-title-ok, so an agent must infer the differentiation from the name.

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 statement about when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The phrase 'Check whether a path looks safe' implies a validation use case, but with many sibling shape/validator tools, the lack of explicit routing leaves the agent to guess.

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