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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions output processing (dropping query and fragment) but does not address potential side effects, network access, or error behavior. The lack of any side-effect information makes this dimension insufficient.

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, direct sentence that front-loads the action and explicitly states the output constraints. There is no redundancy or filler, achieving maximal conciseness while maintaining clarity.

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 the tool has nine parameters and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain the role of the majority of parameters, the expected output format, or how the URL normalization interacts with the provided fields. This leaves an agent unable to correctly invoke the tool.

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?

The description does not explain any of the nine parameters. While the schema provides descriptions, they are unrelated to URL normalization (e.g., 'Git ref name', 'City name'), creating confusion. The tool description offers no clarification, so parameter semantics are effectively absent.

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 primary action: 'Return origin, host, and path for a URL' and specifies that query and fragment are dropped. This gives a specific verb, resource, and output scope, distinguishing it from other URL-related tools. However, the description does not reconcile with the extensive input schema, which introduces ambiguity about the tool's actual purpose.

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 usage conditions or alternative tool references are provided. The description does not indicate when to choose this tool over siblings like browser-url-ok or fetch-status, leaving the agent without guidance on appropriate invocation contexts.

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