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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses only that there is no disk access, omitting what makes a path 'safe', what is returned, and whether inputs other than `path` are handled or discarded.

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 one-line primary purpose followed by a single clarifying behavioral note. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

Even for a simple checker, the description is incomplete against the rich context: nine optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. It fails to say what a 'safe' path is, what response format to expect, or which of the nine fields should be supplied.

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 the baseline is 3 even though the description adds nothing about parameters. The description only singles out 'path', while the other schema fields (ref, url, city, zone, json, query) are left unexplained in relation to the tool's purpose.

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 resource: 'Check whether a path looks safe.' This is specific enough to distinguish it from URL-oriented siblings like browser-url-ok. However, the input schema lists eight other unrelated parameters (url, json, zone, query), which muddies what the tool actually checks.

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 about when to use this tool versus other shape/safety checkers. The phrase 'No disk access' hints at one safe-use context, but there is no explicit when/not-to-use instruction or mention of alternatives.

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