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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that query strings and URL fragments are dropped, which is useful. However, it does not disclose that most of the nine input properties are ignored or discarded, nor what happens with invalid or non-HTTPS URLs.

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 action is front-loaded, and the dropped-query/fragment behavior is stated efficiently. Every sentence 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?

Given nine optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not specify which parameter should receive the URL, what the return type is, or what happens when no URL is provided. An agent could plausibly pass the wrong property among url, feed, or host.

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 tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond saying 'a URL', leaving the schema to identify which parameter is the URL. It does not compensate for or clarify the presence of many unrelated 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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and names the resource ('a URL') and the output components ('origin, host, and path'). It also explains a key behavior (dropping query and fragment), which makes the tool's purpose reasonably distinct from URL-checking siblings. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over the many sibling URL-related tools, such as browser-url-ok, figma-url-shape, or playwright-url-ok. It also gives no exclusions or alternative tool references.

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