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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It only says 'parse,' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose that unrelated parameters are discarded, what happens for invalid or non-GitHub URLs, or whether any lookup or validation is performed. The schema's 'discarded after' hints are not reflected in the description itself.

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 one concise, direct sentence with no filler, and the key verb and resource are front-loaded. It loses a point because the minimal structure does not help resolve the ambiguity introduced by the 9-parameter schema with several seemingly irrelevant parameters.

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 tool has no annotations and no output schema, so the description must explain return behavior and relevant inputs. It currently does not state what the parsed owner/repo result looks like, what error behavior occurs for invalid URLs, or which of the many optional parameters actually matter. This makes reliable invocation harder than necessary.

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% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no per-parameter meaning: it does not explicitly identify url as the GitHub URL to parse, nor does it explain why unrelated parameters like city, feed, json, path, and query are accepted. The parameter descriptions themselves are the main source of information.

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: 'Parse owner and repo from a GitHub URL.' This clearly identifies the tool's function and separates it from sibling shape tools like figma-url-shape and jira-key-shape. The output focus on owner and repo is concrete and actionable.

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 when to use the tool: whenever an agent needs to extract owner and repo from a GitHub URL. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives such as normalize-url, browser-url-ok, or other sibling URL tools, nor does it state when not to use this tool.

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