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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a meaningful trait by stating that query and fragment are dropped, and it lists the returned components. But it says nothing about invalid URLs, normalization edge cases, or whether the many optional schema parameters are actually ignored.

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 sentences, with the primary output front-loaded and the exception stated immediately after. There is no filler and every sentence contributes useful information.

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, and the input schema exposes nine optional parameters that are confusingly described. The description does not explain which parameter is the real input or what happens with malformed URLs, so an agent is left with meaningful ambiguity when invoking the tool.

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 little parameter-level meaning beyond identifying URL as the subject and noting that query/fragment are removed; it does not clarify the role of the other eight optional parameters.

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 operation ('Return origin, host, and path') on a clear resource (URL) and adds the distinguishing detail that query and fragment are dropped. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling URL-related tools, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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: an agent should call this when it needs a URL's origin, host, and path without query or fragment. However, no alternatives are named and no when-not-to-use guidance is provided, so the selection logic is left to inference.

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