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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a key behavior: query and fragment are dropped. However, it does not mention that many of the input schema parameters are effectively ignored/discarded, nor does it describe behavior for invalid URLs or the exact return shape. This is partial transparency, not comprehensive.

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 consists of two concise sentences, front-loading the main return value and then stating the key behavioral caveat. There is no filler or redundancy, and it is appropriately sized for a simple URL-parsing tool.

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 the tool's schema has 9 parameters, no required fields, no output schema, and no annotations, the two-sentence description is insufficient. It does not explain how the returned origin/host/path are structured, which parameter is the actual URL input, or why so many unrelated parameters exist. The description leaves too much for the agent to infer.

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?

All 9 parameters have descriptions in the schema, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond referring to a URL, and it does not clarify which of the many parameters is actually relevant. Since the schema already documents each parameter, including which are discarded, the baseline of 3 applies.

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 the tool's function: it returns origin, host, and path for a URL, and explicitly notes that query and fragment are dropped. This is a specific verb plus resource. However, it does not differentiate this tool from sibling URL-related tools such as browser-url-ok or figma-url-shape, so it stops short of a 5.

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 when to use the tool: anytime you need the normalized origin/host/path of a URL. The statement that query and fragment are dropped also implies a limitation, but there is no explicit 'use when' or 'use instead' guidance, and no alternative tool is named. Usage guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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