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

The description discloses that query and fragment are dropped, which is a useful transformation behavior. However, with no annotations, it does not specify the output structure, error behavior, or the fact that the other eight schema parameters are effectively ignored. The schema's 'discarded' notes partially cover this, but the description alone is thin.

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 the core purpose and key drop behavior front-loaded. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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?

With nine optional parameters and no output schema, the description is under-specified. It does not explain why the other parameters exist, how the return value is structured, or whether the tool only acts on the 'url' field. This leaves the agent uncertain when calling the tool with multiple parameters.

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 meaning for the url parameter by saying normalization returns origin, host, and path, but it does not explain the other parameters beyond what the schema already states.

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. Query and fragment are dropped.' This clearly states what the tool does and distinguishes it from sibling tools like browser-url-ok or figma-url-shape, which focus on validation or shape checks.

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 gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention preferred use cases, conditions, or exclusions, so the agent must infer from the tool name and sibling context.

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