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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It does disclose 'No disk access,' which is useful, but it says nothing about what the tool does with the other parameters (e.g., does it validate JSON? normalize URLs?), what it returns, or any side effects. The minimal disclosure is insufficient for a tool with this breadth.

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 brief (two short sentences) and front-loads the 'path' focus, but it is under-specified. It lacks essential structure such as listing supported input types or indicating this is a multi-purpose validator. The brevity is not effective conciseness—it omits critical information.

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?

Given the tool has 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is woefully incomplete. It does not explain how the tool behaves for each parameter type, what constitutes a 'safe' path, what the result format is, or how it relates to sibling validators. An agent cannot correctly invoke this tool without inspecting the schema in detail, and even then the description misleads.

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%, so the baseline is 3 because the schema documents each parameter. However, the description adds no meaning beyond the schema and actually undermines it by implying only 'path' is relevant. It fails to clarify that different parameters correspond to different validation types, potentially confusing the agent about which parameter to use.

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 and resource ('Check whether a path looks safe') but only covers one of nine parameters in the schema. The tool actually accepts ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, and query, implying it validates many shapes, yet the description only mentions path. This is misleading about scope and fails to distinguish from siblings like browser-url-ok or domain-shape.

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 on when to use this tool versus the many similar shape-check siblings (browser-url-ok, domain-shape, jira-key-shape, etc.). The description gives no context, no exclusions, and no alternative routing, leaving the agent to infer usage entirely from the schema.

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