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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose 'No disk access,' which is valuable, but it does not explain whether the tool is purely syntactic, what 'safe' means, what side effects it has, or what output to expect. The behavioral picture is incomplete.

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 short, front-loaded, and contains no filler; both sentences contribute useful information. However, it is slightly undersized given the complexity of the schema and the need to resolve ambiguity about which parameters actually apply.

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 a seven-parameter schema and no output schema, but the description only addresses one concept ('path') and does not explain return values, which parameters are valid together, or how this tool relates to the sibling shape-checking tools. An agent would likely struggle to invoke it correctly without additional context.

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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for every parameter, so schema coverage is high and the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning and fails to clarify why the schema includes many unrelated fields ('url', 'city', 'json', etc.) when the description focuses only on 'path'.

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 action and object: 'Check whether a path looks safe.' It also adds a meaningful scope qualifier, 'No disk access,' which distinguishes it from tools that actually access the filesystem. It does not name sibling alternatives, but the resource and verb are specific enough for basic selection.

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 implies a safe, static, non-disk-touching check, but it gives no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus the many sibling shape-checking and URL-checking tools. No when-not-to-use conditions or alternative tool names are provided.

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