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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose one meaningful behavior: query and fragment are dropped from the URL. However, it does not cover edge cases, error behavior, normalization details, or what happens when the URL is invalid, and the presence of many unrelated optional parameters is unexplained.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, but for a tool with a 9-parameter schema and no annotations, the brevity leaves important context unstated, so it is not fully appropriately sized.

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 description is too sparse relative to the context: nine optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and many sibling tools. It does not explain which parameter is the primary input, what the other parameters mean, what the return format is, or how this tool relates to URL-checking siblings.

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 mild semantic value by clarifying that URL query and fragment components are removed, but it does not clarify the roles of the other eight parameters. The word 'query' is even used in a different sense than the schema's 'query' parameter, which could cause confusion.

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 and resource: 'Return origin, host, and path for a URL.' It also states a clear behavior, dropping query and fragment, which makes the tool's basic purpose understandable. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools, but the output shape is unique enough to infer a distinct role.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like browser-url-ok, web-fetch, or citation. The description only states what the tool does, not the conditions that should lead an agent to select it, and it does not mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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