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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose one meaningful behavior: 'Query and fragment are dropped.' It does not explain behavior for invalid URLs, whether other schema fields are ignored, or the exact return structure.

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 sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a concise behavioral detail. Every word earns its 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?

The tool has nine optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, but the description only addresses URL normalization. It does not clarify whether only `url` matters, what happens with the other fields, or what the returned data shape looks like, leaving substantial ambiguity for correct invocation.

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 little parameter-level meaning beyond the schema; it clarifies URL query/fragment behavior but does not help an agent map the nine unrelated optional properties to this tool's actual usage.

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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Return origin, host, and path for a URL.' This distinguishes it from fetching or checking tools, though it does not explicitly contrast it with siblings like browser-url-ok or playwright-url-ok.

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 use case is implied: use this tool when you need a URL normalized to origin, host, and path with query/fragment removed. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over any of the many URL-related siblings, nor does it state any exclusions.

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