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 the core behavior: only origin, host, and path are returned, while query and fragment are dropped. But it does not say whether the URL is fetched or validated, how invalid input is handled, or what happens with the nine optional schema parameters, leaving the behavior only partially transparent.

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 tight two-sentence definition with no filler. It front-loads the return contract and immediately states the important drop behavior, so every word earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must specify the return format and correct invocation. It names the output components but not their shape, and with nine optional parameters and zero required parameters, it does not tell an agent that only 'url' is relevant, which is a significant completeness gap.

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 tool description adds no parameter-level detail. The description implies that 'url' is the meaningful input, but it does not reconcile the schema's many unrelated optional parameters such as city, json, zone, and query, which weakens invocation clarity.

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 names the resource and outputs ('origin, host, and path for a URL'), so it is clearly not a tautology. It also adds the key behavior that query and fragment are dropped. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from URL-related siblings like browser-url-ok or web-fetch.

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 intended use is implied: call this when you need the origin, host, and path of a URL, and avoid it if you need query or fragment values. But there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative among the many URL-adjacent sibling tools, so routing is left to inference.

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