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

With no annotations, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It mentions dropping query and fragment, but fails to explain that other parameters are 'discarded after a shape check' as the schema implies, or how invalid URLs are handled. The description under-represents the tool's multi-purpose behavior.

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 fluff. It states the core action and the dropped components efficiently. However, it could benefit from a brief note about the other parameters to align with the schema.

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?

Given 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the return format (object, string, list), how to handle the non-URL parameters, or what happens when multiple parameters are passed. An agent cannot reliably use this tool beyond the trivial URL case.

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 all 9 parameters have descriptions. The tool description adds no value beyond the schema for parameter meaning and does not clarify which parameter (e.g., 'url') is the primary one for normalization. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents parameters.

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 the action for a URL: return origin, host, and path, and drop query/fragment. However, it ignores the 9-parameter schema that includes many unrelated inputs (city, feed, json, zone, etc.), making the tool's actual scope ambiguous. It does not differentiate from sibling shape-checking tools like domain-shape or figma-url-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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus siblings such as domain-shape, browser-url-ok, or playwright-url-ok. The description does not state use cases, exclusions, or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer selection.

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