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

The description discloses that query and fragment are dropped, which is a behavioral detail. However, it does not mention error handling, valid input requirements (e.g., HTTPS enforcement from schema), or side effects. It lacks transparency about edge cases, invalid URLs, or any prerequisites. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden but falls short.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences with no redundant wording. It efficiently communicates the core functionality without unnecessary details.

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?

Given the complexity of 9 parameters and the absence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the output format (e.g., string, object), how to specify the URL among the many parameters, or what happens to the unused parameters. The description leaves significant gaps for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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 has 9 parameters, but the description only refers to 'URL', 'query', and 'fragment' vaguely. It does not clarify that the 'url' parameter is the primary input or that other parameters (ref, city, feed, etc.) are likely irrelevant. The schema's own descriptions are decent for individual parameters, but the tool description adds no additional clarity about which parameters are actually used and how they map to the URL normalization task.

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's action: 'Return origin, host, and path for a URL. Query and fragment are dropped.' This is specific and identifies the resource (URL components) and the verb (return). However, it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like browser-url-ok or figma-url-shape, though the focus on URL parsing is evident.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply states what it does without indicating conditions, use cases, or scenarios where it is preferable over other URL-related tools. There is no mention of 'use this when' or 'instead of'.

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