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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that query and fragment are dropped, but it does not mention other normalization details, edge-case handling, or explicitly state that no network request is made.

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 sentences with no filler. The primary output is stated first, and the key drop behavior is front-loaded in the second sentence.

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?

Despite having a nine-property schema and no output schema, the description only addresses URL normalization. It does not specify which parameters are operative, how the return value is structured, or whether URL is effectively required, leaving the tool under-specified in context.

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 no additional parameter-level meaning and does not clarify which of the nine schema properties are actually relevant beyond the URL.

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 operation (return origin, host, and path) on a specific resource (a URL), and the query/fragment dropping rule distinguishes it from sibling URL validation and fetching tools. It is immediately clear what the tool produces.

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 description implies the tool should be used when URL components such as origin, host, and path are needed, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it. No routing among the many sibling URL-related tools is provided.

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