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

With no annotations, the description is the only behavioral disclosure. It does state that query and fragment are dropped, which is useful, but it fails to mention any other behaviors – e.g., whether any parameters trigger network access (the 'website' parameter description suggests otherwise), how invalid URLs are handled, or what the return format is. The description's narrow scope leaves a large transparency gap.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the main action and result. No wasted words; it is appropriately sized.

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?

Given that the tool accepts 10 optional parameters of widely varying domains (city, feed, json, zone, etc.), the description is far too minimal. It only explains the URL handling, leaving the agent to wonder what the other parameters are for and whether they affect the result. This is a major 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all 10 parameters, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides – it only mentions 'URL', 'query', and 'fragment', which are concepts already covered. Baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and names the exact output fields (origin, host, path), plus a clear exclusion (query and fragment dropped). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like browser-url-ok or web-fetch, which judge or fetch URLs rather than extract components.

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 mention of when to use this tool versus alternatives like browser-url-ok or fetch-status. The description provides no context for choosing this tool, no scenarios, and no exclusions.

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