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

The description discloses a key behavior ('Query and fragment are dropped') and the return content, but with no annotations it leaves other behavioral traits unstated, such as whether any validation occurs, whether network access is involved, or how invalid URLs are handled.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the dropping behavior is stated directly.

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?

With no output schema and a confusing nine-parameter input schema, the description is not enough context. It does not specify the return format, which parameters are actually needed, error behavior, or why most of the declared parameters are present.

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?

Although every parameter has a schema description, most are unrelated to URL normalization (e.g., 'Git ref name', 'City name', 'IANA timezone name'), and the description does not clarify why they exist. It only implicitly covers 'url' and 'query', but even 'query' conflicts with the schema description of 'Search text; discarded after the length check'.

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 action ('Return origin, host, and path') and input ('for a URL'), and clarifies that query and fragment are dropped. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like browser-url-ok or fetch-status, which check availability or status.

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 given about when to choose this tool over alternatives, and no sibling tools are referenced. The description only says what it does, not when it should be used.

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