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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose a concrete behavioral trait: query and fragment are dropped. However, it does not clarify behavior for invalid URLs, whether any network access occurs, or how ignored input parameters are handled; the schema partially covers the latter.

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 core behavior is front-loaded ('Return origin, host, and path') and the additional drop behavior is stated economically.

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 nine parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is somewhat under-specified: it does not state the return shape, does not explicitly identify `url` as the only meaningful input, and gives no error or edge-case behavior. The schema compensates for param discard notes, but the description alone leaves notable gaps.

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 little parameter-level meaning and even creates slight ambiguity by using 'path' as an output term while a 'path' input parameter exists. The schema's individual 'discarded' notes are what actually clarify parameter roles.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and names the resource ('origin, host, and path for a URL'). It also states that query and fragment are dropped, which clearly distinguishes this extraction/normalization tool from sibling URL-validation tools such as browser-url-ok or playwright-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 description implies usage: use this tool when you need the origin, host, and path of a URL. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and does not mention any sibling alternatives, leaving selection largely to inference.

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