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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the core output and the drop behavior for query/fragment, but it does not mention network behavior, invalid-input handling, or that the many other schema fields appear irrelevant to URL normalization.

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 main output is front-loaded, and the drop behavior is the only secondary detail included; both earn their place.

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?

Despite a simple core behavior, the schema exposes nine optional parameters that look like leftovers from other tools (city, feed, json, zone, etc.), and there is no output schema. The description does not clarify which parameters are actually relevant or what the return structure looks like, leaving an agent under-informed.

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 coverage is 100%, so each parameter has a description and the baseline is 3. The tool description adds little to parameter meaning, and its 'Query... dropped' wording could be confused with the separate 'query' input 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 resource: 'Return origin, host, and path for a URL.' This is far from a tautology and clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling URL checkers and fetchers by focusing on URL decomposition rather than validation or fetching.

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 behavior statement implies the tool is for extracting origin/host/path while discarding query and fragment, but it never explicitly names alternatives or states when not to use it. With many sibling URL-related tools, explicit routing would have helped.

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