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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'No disk access,' which is a useful safety property, but it omits what the tool returns (e.g., a boolean), how it determines safety, or any error behavior. This is insufficient for an agent to predict the outcome of a call.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose. It is concise and contains no filler. The only minor issue is that it omits necessary context, but the phrasing itself is efficient.

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, yet the description focuses only on 'path' and does not explain the presence of the other eight parameters (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, zone, query). This is confusing because an agent might wonder why a 'file-path-ok' tool accepts a city or timezone. Additionally, there is no output schema, so the description should clarify the return format, which it does not. This is a significant completeness gap.

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 each parameter is documented. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already states for 'path'. Since the schema covers everything, the baseline is 3, and the description does not need to compensate.

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 ('Check') and resource ('whether a path looks safe'), which is distinct from sibling tools that check URLs, domains, or other shapes. It is not a tautology and gives a concrete purpose. However, it does not define what 'safe' means, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or routing to other tools. An agent would have to infer that this is for file path validation from the name and description, but no explicit comparison to siblings like 'browser-url-ok' is given.

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