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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden itself. It clearly discloses that query and fragment are dropped and that only origin, host, and path are returned. It does not mention that non-URL parameters appear irrelevant, but the schema descriptions already label them as discarded.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The first states the primary purpose and the second adds the key exclusion (query/fragment dropped). Every sentence 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 description explains the return values and the dropped components, which is adequate for the core operation. However, with seven parameters and no output schema, it leaves ambiguity about whether only `url` should be supplied and how the other parameters relate to the tool's behavior.

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 descriptions cover 100% of the parameters, so the baseline is 3. The main description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond implying that `url` is the operative input; it does not clarify the role of the many discarded 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 states a specific verb ('Return') and a precise resource ('origin, host, and path for a URL'), making the tool's core function clear. It distinguishes the tool from fetch/validation siblings in spirit, though it does not explicitly name any alternative.

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 intended use is implied: an agent would reach for it when it needs URL components while dropping query and fragment. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or mention of alternatives like browser-url-ok or web-fetch.

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