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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It does disclose a meaningful behavior—query and fragment are dropped—but it does not mention error handling, URL validation behavior, or the exact returned structure beyond naming three components.

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. It states the core behavior and the key exclusion in under fifteen 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?

The tool is simple and the description names the returned components, but there is no output schema and no annotation coverage, so the exact return format is unspecified. The presence of nine optional parameters also makes it less obvious which parameter is actually relevant, though the schema descriptions mitigate this.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds value by explaining that a URL's query and fragment are intentionally discarded, which clarifies the effect of the `url` parameter. It does not explain the many unrelated optional parameters, but the schema already labels them as discarded.

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 precise verb and resource: return origin, host, and path for a URL. It also explicitly says query and fragment are dropped, which makes the tool's scope unusually clear and distinguishes it from URL-fetching or URL-checking siblings.

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 for extracting normalized URL components when query and fragment are not needed, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over alternatives like web-fetch or browser-url-ok. No when-not-to-use or alternative guidance is provided.

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