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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses 'No disk access,' a useful safety trait, but says nothing about what 'safe' means (syntax? traversal? existence?), what happens with the other parameters, or whether the tool performs any validation beyond shape. The one behavioral note is not enough to understand side effects or limitations.

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 short (two sentences), which is concise, but it omits crucial context about the tool's multi-parameter nature and the meaning of 'safe.' It is not tautological, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently structured. Front-loading the purpose is good, but the lack of any elaboration makes it less effective.

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?

For a tool with nine parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is severely incomplete. It does not explain why parameters like 'city' or 'json' exist, what the tool returns, how the 'safe' check is performed, or any edge cases. An agent cannot reliably decide when to use it or what to expect from the call.

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%, so every parameter already has a description (e.g., 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check'). The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so it does not exceed the baseline of 3 for tools with full schema coverage. The mismatch between the description's 'path' focus and the unrelated parameters is not addressed here.

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 verb and resource: 'Check whether a path looks safe.' However, 'safe' is vague, and the schema includes nine parameters (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, zone, query) that have no obvious relation to paths, leaving confusion about the tool's actual scope. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like browser-url-ok or domain-shape, which likely perform similar safety checks on different resource types.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is for checking paths but does not mention exclusions (e.g., URLs should use browser-url-ok) or prerequisites. An agent has to infer applicability from the name and schema, which is insufficient.

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