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

The description does disclose a concrete behavioral trait, dropping query and fragment, and specifies the output fields, which is helpful given the lack of annotations. However, it leaves important behaviors unstated, such as whether the URL is validated, whether network access occurs, whether HTTPS is required, and what happens on malformed input. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 the main purpose front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence adds a precise behavioral qualifier about query and fragment being dropped, so 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?

With nine parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, two sentences are not enough to define an unambiguous contract. The description fails to clarify which parameters are used, whether 'url' is semantically required, what the exact return format is, and why several schema fields are present. An agent could easily mis-select parameters or misunderstand the tool's actual behavior.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, the definition creates real semantic confusion: the core 'url' parameter is not required in the schema while the description implies it is necessary. The 'path' parameter is documented as 'File path to check', conflicting with the description's promise to return a URL path, and unrelated parameters like city, feed, json, zone, and ref are left unexplained. The description does not help an agent understand which parameters actually matter.

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 for a URL' and clarifies that query and fragment are dropped. This is more informative than the tool name alone and suggests a distinct normalization purpose. It loses a point because it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling URL tools like web-fetch or browser-url-ok, and the unusually broad schema muddies the intended scope.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as fetch-status, web-fetch, or playwright-url-ok. There are no stated prerequisites, exclusions, or conditional cues for an agent. The output semantics imply a use case, but the description never names an alternative or says when not to use it.

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