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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the transformation performed and the dropping of query and fragment. It does not mention network behavior, but the stated output strongly implies a local parse; while more detail would be welcome, the core behavior is transparent enough.

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 primary action and output are stated first, and the exclusionary detail about query and fragment is a necessary and efficient addition without any wasted words.

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?

While the schema richly documents all nine parameters, the description itself does not clarify why so many unrelated optional parameters exist or how they interact with URL normalization. The return value is specified, but without examples or routing guidance, the overall definition is adequate yet leaves some contextual gaps for such a broad parameter set.

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 every parameter already has a meaningful description in the schema. The tool description itself only adds context about the output for the 'url' parameter and does not add parameter-level semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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'), a clear resource ('URL'), and the exact output components ('origin, host, and path'). It also says what is deliberately omitted ('Query and fragment are dropped'), which distinguishes it from sibling URL tools that check validity or fetch content.

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 implies the tool is used when you need to extract origin, host, and path from a URL, but it gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer it over related tools like figma-url-shape, github-repo-shape, or web-fetch. It does not state exclusions or alternatives, so the agent must infer the intended use case.

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