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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly states that query and fragment are dropped, which is useful, but it does not disclose error handling, invalid URL behavior, or the fact that the schema contains many apparently unrelated parameters that are discarded. The description is honest but incomplete.

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 core output is stated first, and the dropping behavior is added immediately after. Every word earns its place.

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?

Despite the simple core behavior, the tool has nine parameters, no required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description does not specify what the returned origin/host/path structure looks like, nor does it clarify how to choose among the many parameters. This is insufficient for reliable invocation in a complex schema context.

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. The description adds the useful clarification that query and fragment are dropped from the URL, but it does not explain which of the nine parameters are relevant or how they relate to the normalization operation.

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') with a clear resource ('origin, host, and path for a URL') and a concrete behavior ('Query and fragment are dropped'). This makes the tool's purpose recognizable, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling URL-related tools like browser-url-ok or 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?

The intended use is implied: use this tool when you need origin, host, and path from a URL while discarding query and fragment. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are named among the sibling tools.

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