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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that no disk access occurs, which is useful, but it fails to mention whether the tool is read-only, what side effects (if any) exist, or what the return value represents.

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 and front-loaded: a short imperative statement plus a critical safety qualifier. No unnecessary words or repetitions.

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 and no output schema, yet the description does not explain the expected input combinations, the meaning of the result, or any error/edge-case behavior. The sparse description is far from sufficient for correct invocation in 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?

Although schema descriptions cover 100% of parameters, the description adds no clarity about how the many unrelated-looking parameters (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, zone, query) relate to a file-path check. Only 'path' is obviously relevant, leaving the agent unable to determine which parameters to supply.

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 identifies the tool's core action: checking whether a path looks safe, and explicitly states there is no disk access. It is distinct from URL and domain checking tools, but it does not explain what makes a path 'safe' or what kind of result is returned.

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 gives a one-line purpose but offers no guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings like browser-url-ok, domain-shape, or normalize-url. The 'No disk access' hint implies safety, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use direction.

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