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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses one key behavior (dropping query and fragment), but does not mention error handling, network access, or any validation side effects.

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 focused sentence with no filler, front-loading the verb and target. It is concise, though the mismatch with the large schema makes it less useful than its brevity would suggest.

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, one sentence is not enough. It does not specify the return format, explain the irrelevant parameters, or describe behavior for invalid URLs, leaving the schema confusing.

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 contains nine parameters, but the description only relates to 'url'; most parameters (ref, city, feed, json, zone, etc.) have templated descriptions that appear copied from other tools. The description does not clarify which parameters are actually used or how 'query' relates to the URL query string.

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?

Description states a clear action (return origin, host, and path) and target resource (URL), and explicitly notes query/fragment dropping. This distinguishes it from URL-fetching/checking siblings even without naming them.

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 purpose implies when to use it (need URL components), but there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives like browser-url-ok, fetch-status, or web-fetch.

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