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. However, with no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does not mention how the many unrelated parameters (city, zone, ref, etc.) are handled, nor any error behavior or constraints like HTTPS-only.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. It efficiently conveys the core behavior and the key constraint about query/fragment.

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 9 parameters and no output schema or annotations, yet the description only addresses URL handling. It does not explain the purpose of the other parameters or why they exist, leaving an agent uncertain about what to pass or expect. This is a significant gap for a tool with such a broad schema.

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 parameters are individually described. However, the tool description itself adds nothing about parameter usage, and the schema descriptions indicate most parameters are 'discarded' — a confusing design that the tool description does not clarify. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does document each parameter.

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 the tool returns origin, host, and path for a URL and drops query/fragment. It is specific and actionable, but does not differentiate from siblings like browser-url-ok or figma-url-shape, which may also operate on URLs.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, with no mention of when it is appropriate or when other URL-related tools should be chosen.

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