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

With no annotations, the description is the only source of behavioral disclosure. It usefully states that query and fragment are dropped, but it does not mention that several input parameters (city, feed, json, zone, etc.) are accepted only to be discarded, whether any network access occurs, or what happens on invalid input.

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 deliver the core behavior with no filler, and the most decision-relevant information ('origin, host, and path'; 'query and fragment are dropped') is front-loaded. This is a model of concise writing, even if other dimensions need more content.

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?

For a tool with 9 parameters, no output schema, and a large sibling set, the description is too sparse. It doesn't specify the return format, which parameters actually participate in normalization, how unrelated parameters are treated, or how this differs from sibling URL tools.

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 already documents all 9 parameters; the description adds no parameter-level meaning. Baseline 3 applies, though the description's 'query and fragment dropped' only loosely aligns with the query parameter's 'discarded after the length check' semantics.

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?

Description names a concrete output ('origin, host, and path') and a verb ('Return') tied to URLs, making the core operation clear. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling URL tools like browser-url-ok or figma-url-shape, but the stated scope is specific enough.

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 prefer this tool over the many sibling URL/shape tools, nor are exclusions or prerequisites mentioned. The intended invocation context must be inferred entirely from the tool name and the terse behavior statement.

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