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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It states only that it parses owner and repo, and does not disclose output shape, failure behavior, or whether unrelated parameters are ignored.

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 redundant words, and it is appropriately front-loaded with the core action.

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 tool has nine optional parameters and no output schema, but the description only covers the basic purpose. It does not explain how the parameters relate to parsing, what the return value is, or why unrelated fields are present, leaving callers with insufficient 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?

The schema covers all parameters, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds no parameter-level meaning and actually conflicts with the schema's description of 'url' as 'normalize or cite'. Several fields are marked 'discarded' in the schema, yet the description gives no clue why they are accepted.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Parse owner and repo from a GitHub URL'), but the input schema contains nine unrelated optional fields, and the 'url' field is described as 'normalize or cite', not parse owner/repo. This mismatch weakens the clarity of what the tool actually does.

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 about when to use this tool instead of sibling shape/URL tools such as normalize-url or figma-url-shape. The purpose implies use for GitHub URLs, but no explicit when/when-not conditions are provided.

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