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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that query strings and fragments are dropped, which is useful. However, it does not explain the odd 9-parameter schema where most fields are labeled 'discarded', nor does it describe behavior for invalid URLs or the exact return shape.

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 short sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the key transformation behavior is stated directly.

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?

For a tool with 9 optional parameters, no required fields, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is incomplete. It leaves the agent unsure which parameter drives the call, what the return format is, and why most schema fields are described as discarded.

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 minimal parameter meaning beyond mentioning URL components, but it does not clarify the relationship between the `url` parameter and the several 'discarded' parameters. The 'Query and fragment are dropped' line could even be confused with the `query` parameter.

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 and result: 'Return origin, host, and path for a URL. Query and fragment are dropped.' It clearly describes the tool's function and distinguishes it from URL-checking or fetching siblings by focusing on normalized components.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool instead of siblings like `browser-url-ok`, `web-fetch`, or `citation`. The description does not mention which parameter should be provided, whether `url` is the intended primary input, or what conditions make this the right choice.

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