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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose a key behavioral trait: 'Query and fragment are dropped,' which tells the agent not to expect those parts in the output. It does not describe side effects or error cases, but for a read-only normalization-style tool the main behavior is stated.

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 with no filler. The main output intent is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the single important behavioral nuance is in the second.

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 definition is adequate for the core url parameter but not complete for the surrounding context: there is no output schema, no annotations, and the input schema contains 9 optional parameters. The description does not state the output shape or address the expected behavior when non-url parameters are supplied, leaving the agent to rely on parameter descriptions.

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 the baseline is 3 even though the tool description adds no parameter-level guidance. The description's mention of a URL aligns with the url parameter, but it does not explain which of the 9 optional parameters are relevant or confirm that the other parameters are ignored; the schema descriptions carry that weight.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Return origin, host, and path for a URL.' This clearly scopes the tool's output and differentiates it from URL-checking siblings like browser-url-ok or domain-shape, which validate or inspect shapes rather than normalize into components. The additional sentence about dropping query and fragment makes the purpose even more precise.

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 implies the intended use: call this when you need origin, host, or path extracted from a URL. However, it gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternative routing, even though the sibling list contains similar URL-related tools such as browser-url-ok and figma-url-shape.

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