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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a meaningful behavior: query and fragment are dropped. However, it does not clarify what happens with invalid URLs, whether the output is a string or object, or why the schema contains many seemingly unrelated parameters.

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 return value is stated first, then the drop behavior. Every word contributes meaning.

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 core behavior is described, but the definition is incomplete in context: no output schema, no annotations, and a 9-parameter schema full of unrelated fields such as city, feed, json, and zone. An agent cannot confidently determine which parameters are relevant or what output shape to expect.

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 even though the description adds minimal parameter-level detail. The description points to 'a URL,' and the schema already identifies the url parameter as the HTTPS URL to normalize, but neither clarifies how the eight other optional parameters should be handled.

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 clearly states what the tool does: it returns origin, host, and path for a URL, and drops query and fragment. It is specific about the resource and behavior, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling URL-related tools like browser-url-ok or figma-url-shape.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of prerequisites. The only usage signal is implied by the description itself.

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