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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does state 'No disk access,' which is a useful safety guarantee. However, it doesn't disclose the return format, what triggers an unsafe result, or whether it modifies anything. The single behavior disclosed is positive, but 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 extremely concise with only two sentences. Both sentences are meaningful: the purpose and a key safety behavior. It is front-loaded and has no fluff, earning a high score for conciseness.

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 parameters and no output schema, but the description only addresses the path check. It fails to explain the purpose of the other 8 parameters or clarify that they are ignored. An agent would be confused about what to provide for ref, url, city, etc. This is a significant gap for a tool with such a broad 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 coverage is 100%, so all nine parameters have descriptions. The tool description does not add meaning to the parameters, but the baseline is 3 when schema is complete. The mismatch between the description focusing only on 'path' and the schema containing eight unrelated parameters (ref, url, city, etc.) creates ambiguity, though the schema descriptions themselves are clear.

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's purpose: 'Check whether a path looks safe.' This matches the tool name and distinguishes it from URL/domain checkers like browser-url-ok or domain-shape. However, it doesn't define what 'safe' means, which is a minor gap.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. It is a single statement without any usage context.

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