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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly discloses a key behavior: query and fragment are discarded and only origin, host, and path are returned. It does not cover invalid-URL handling, but the core data-loss behavior is 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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The main output is stated first, and the important exclusion—query and fragment dropped—is front-loaded and concise.

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?

Given a nine-parameter schema, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is under-specified. It does not identify which parameter to pass, does not clarify that other parameters are ignored, and provides no return-shape detail beyond field names.

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 no parameter-level guidance, such as directing the agent to the 'url' property or noting that the other eight optional parameters are irrelevant. The schema's own 'url' description carries that weight.

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 operation—return origin, host, and path for a URL—and clearly notes that query and fragment are dropped. This distinguishes it from sibling URL-related tools like web-fetch or browser-url-ok.

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 dropped query/fragment clause implies this tool is not suitable when those parts must be preserved, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when to prefer this tool over siblings. Usage guidance is only implicit.

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