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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the key transformation (returning components and dropping query/fragment) and implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state whether the tool is local, network-free, or side-effect-free.

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 one focused sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes a useful detail about query and fragment handling. There is no filler or redundant wording.

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 states the high-level output but omits the return shape and fails to address the many unrelated optional parameters in the schema. An agent cannot confidently know how to supply parameters or interpret the result from this description alone.

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?

Although every parameter has a schema description, most are unrelated to URL normalization (city, json, zone, query, feed, ref, path, host). The tool description does not clarify that only `url` is relevant, making the parameter list actively misleading.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Return origin, host, and path for a URL.' It also states that query and fragment are dropped, which distinguishes it from URL-fetching siblings, though the cluttered schema prevents a perfect score.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison with sibling tools such as browser-url-ok, web-fetch, or fetch-status. The behavior implies a normalization use case, but alternatives are never mentioned.

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