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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It discloses 'No disk access,' which is useful, but it does not explain what 'safe' means, how each of the 9 parameters is handled, or what happens to non-path inputs. The schema descriptions mention 'discarded after the shape check,' but the description adds little beyond that.

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 sentences, no waste, and the key scoping note ('No disk access') is front-loaded. It is appropriately short for the information it conveys.

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, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain the overall purpose (shape checking across multiple input types), the meaning of 'safe,' or how the tool should be used with non-path parameters.

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. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it only mentions 'path' while the schema documents all 9 parameters in detail.

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 and resource ('check whether a path looks safe'), but the schema contains 9 parameters covering URL, city, feed, host, JSON, zone, query, and path, so the description is misleading and incomplete. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like browser-url-ok or domain-shape, which are clearly scoped to specific shapes.

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 siblings. There is no mention of conditions, alternatives, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess whether to use this or a specialized shape checker.

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