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

The description discloses that query and fragment are dropped, which is useful behavioral information. With no annotations, it omits error handling, invalid-URL behavior, and whether any network access occurs.

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 concise sentence with no filler. The core behavior is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 nine optional parameters and no output schema, the description lacks essential context. It does not define the result format, parameter roles, or usage preconditions, leaving an agent to guess.

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 tool description addresses only the URL concept, while the schema lists nine parameters and most seem unrelated (e.g., city, feed, zone, ref). The description does not clarify which parameters are actually used or how they relate to the stated purpose.

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 it returns origin, host, and path for a URL and explicitly mentions dropping query and fragment. It is specific enough to distinguish from most siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast with other URL-related tools.

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 URL-related siblings like browser-url-ok or fetch-status. The description only explains the transformation, not the intended use case or exclusions.

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