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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. 'Parse' suggests a read-only operation with no side effects, and the schema descriptions clarify that unrelated fields are discarded. However, it does not disclose invalid-URL behavior or the exact return format.

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. Every word contributes to defining what the tool does.

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 core function is clear, and the schema is detailed, but without an output schema or annotations, the return shape and error behavior are left implied. For a tool with many parameters, an explicit note that only 'url' is used would improve completeness.

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 schema itself documents each parameter. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning; the schema already indicates which fields are discarded.

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: 'Parse owner and repo from a GitHub URL.' This clearly defines the tool's core function and differentiates it from sibling shape tools such as domain-shape, figma-url-shape, and jira-key-shape.

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 intended use is implied: call this tool when a GitHub URL needs to be converted into owner and repo components. However, the description does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like normalize-url for general URL handling.

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