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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'No disk access' but fails to mention return type, side effects, or that the tool likely validates other input types beyond paths (given the extra schema fields). This is insufficient for an agent to predict behavior.

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 concise (two short sentences) with no wasted words, but it's too sparse for a tool with 9 parameters and no output schema. It's not front-loaded with context about the full scope or return values, so conciseness comes at the cost of completeness.

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 tool has 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description only addresses path checking, leaving the purpose of the other parameters unexplained. An agent would not know what to do with ref, url, city, etc., or what the tool returns. This is clearly incomplete for such a complex schema.

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% (every parameter has a description), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no meaning beyond the schema—it doesn't even acknowledge the other parameters. The only addition, 'No disk access', is already present in the path parameter's schema description, so it adds no new value.

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 clearly states the tool checks whether a path looks safe and explicitly notes no disk access, giving a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from URL-focused siblings by using 'path', but it doesn't mention that the schema also includes many other unrelated parameters, which could confuse an agent about the tool's true 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like browser-url-ok or figma-url-shape. The description doesn't mention any selection criteria, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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