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

The description discloses that query and fragment are dropped, and 'Return' implies a read-only transformation. However, there are no annotations, and the description does not mention the HTTPS-only requirement (only visible in the schema), error handling, or the fact that all parameters other than `url` are effectively ignored. This is partial transparency.

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 terse sentences with no filler, and the core operation is front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place, making it highly 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?

The definition is incomplete for correct invocation. There is no output schema, and the description does not specify the return format (e.g., object keys or string template). It also fails to explain why eight optional parameters exist or that they should be omitted, and it leaves the HTTPS-only restriction to the schema rather than the description.

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 meaning for the `url` parameter by saying query and fragment are dropped, but it does not explain the eight unrelated parameters; their schema descriptions say they are discarded, which is already structured information.

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 resource ('origin, host, and path for a URL'), and it adds the behavioral detail that query and fragment are dropped. It is clear about the core operation, but it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from siblings like domain-shape or browser-url-ok, so it stops short of full distinction.

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?

No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no mentions of alternatives, exclusions, or conditions. The schema's many unrelated optional parameters add confusion about which parameter to supply, and the description does not clarify that only `url` is relevant.

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