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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a meaningful behavioral trait: query and fragment are dropped. However, it does not clarify whether this is a purely local operation, how invalid URLs are handled, or how the various unrelated schema parameters interact with normalization.

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?

Two short, focused sentences with no filler. The core purpose and the key transformation are front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 output shape is described, which is helpful since there is no output schema. However, the tool exposes nine optional parameters and the description never identifies which one is the primary input, so an agent may be uncertain about what to pass.

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 every parameter already has a description. The description adds minimal parameter-level meaning, and it uses 'host' and 'path' as output terms while the schema also has input parameters with those names, creating possible ambiguity.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Return origin, host, and path for a URL.' It also specifies a key transformation, dropping query and fragment, which clearly differentiates it from URL-checking or fetching siblings like browser-url-ok and web-fetch.

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 provided for when to choose this tool over the many URL-related siblings, and no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned. An agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and description.

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