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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that query and fragment are dropped, which is useful, but it omits the return format, normalization rules, and any side effects. The schema also reveals that many unrelated parameters are accepted and discarded, which the description does not clarify.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes meaning, and the key behavioral caveat about query and fragment is included efficiently.

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 output schema, so the description should explain return values clearly; it only names the components without specifying structure or format. More importantly, the input schema lists 9 optional parameters with no required fields and several that appear unrelated to URL normalization, leaving an agent unsure what to pass or what happens with the extra inputs.

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 a small amount of meaning by explaining that URL query and fragment are dropped, but it does not clarify which of the 9 optional parameters matter for this tool, especially given the many unrelated-looking fields in the schema.

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 names a specific operation and resource: 'Return origin, host, and path for a URL.' It also adds a meaningful scoping detail by stating that query and fragment are dropped. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling URL-related tools, but the core purpose is clear.

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?

Usage is implied: an agent can infer this tool is for extracting origin, host, and path from a URL, and the note about dropping query/fragment hints at when it is not appropriate. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives, prerequisites, or when-not-to-use conditions.

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