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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses one key normalization behavior—query and fragment are dropped—and frames the tool as returning URL components. But it does not explain what else 'normalize' entails, how invalid or missing URLs are handled, or that unrelated input parameters are ignored, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The core behavior is stated first, and the exclusion of query/fragment adds useful detail without redundancy.

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 description is sufficient for a simple read-only URL extraction tool, but it is incomplete relative to the context: there is no output schema, all 9 schema parameters are optional, and it is not stated that `url` is the effective required input or what happens when extra parameters are passed. The odd mix of 'discarded' parameters in the schema adds ambiguity the description does not resolve.

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 schema already documents each parameter, including that `url` is 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite' and that `query` is discarded. The description adds little beyond noting query/fragment are dropped, and it does not clarify the relationship between the output 'path' and the input `path` property. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Return') and precisely identifies the resource and outputs: origin, host, and path for a URL. It also explicitly excludes query and fragment, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like browser-url-ok or web-fetch that check availability or fetch content rather than extract URL components.

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 use case is implied: an agent should call this when it needs origin/host/path and wants query/fragment stripped. However, the description gives no explicit 'use when' / 'when not' guidance and does not name alternatives or exclusions, so the agent must infer selection from the tool name and output semantics.

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