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

It discloses 'No disk access,' which is a useful behavioral note. However, it does not explain how the tool handles multiple parameters, why some parameters are 'discarded,' or what happens when non-path inputs are supplied.

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) with no redundancy. The brevity is appropriate for the text, though it leaves out critical context given the schema complexity.

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 description is incomplete for the given schema. It only addresses file paths while the schema includes many other input types. An agent would not know why the other parameters exist or how to use the 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?

Each parameter has a description, but they are inconsistent with the tool's stated purpose. For example, 'url' is described as 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite,' which does not align with a file-path checker. The descriptions provide individual meaning but fail to clarify the overall tool behavior.

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 verb ('Check') and resource ('path'), but the schema includes many unrelated parameters (url, city, feed, etc.) that are not mentioned. This creates ambiguity about the tool's actual scope.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like browser-url-ok or domain-shape. It does not explain which parameter(s) to provide or how the tool relates to sibling shape checkers.

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