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

The only behavioral disclosure is 'No disk access,' which is useful. But with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose what 'safe' means, what the return value is, whether other parameters are validated, or any side effects beyond the path check. This is a significant gap for a tool that accepts 9 diverse inputs.

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 very concise – two sentences – but it is under-specified for a tool with 9 parameters. It front-loads the path check but omits any mention of the other accepted inputs, making it too terse to be useful. Conciseness is not a virtue when critical information is missing.

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's complexity (9 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is grossly incomplete. It only addresses one aspect (path safety) and gives no indication of the tool's broader purpose, return format, or how to handle the other parameters. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool correctly based on the provided information.

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 in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the path check. Since the schema fully documents each parameter, the baseline of 3 is appropriate. However, the description does not clarify how the 'path' parameter relates to the other fields, leaving the overall semantics ambiguous.

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.' However, the input schema includes 9 unrelated parameters (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, zone, query) with no mention in the description. This creates a mismatch: an agent would assume this tool only handles file paths, but it actually appears to be a generic shape-checking tool. The description is misleading 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus any of its 26 siblings. There is no mention of alternatives, exclusions, or conditions that would route an agent to this tool over others like 'domain-shape' or 'browser-url-ok'. The description gives zero usage context.

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