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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It does transparently state that query and fragment are dropped, but it does not disclose that the rest of the 8 schema parameters are effectively ignored, nor does it clarify what happens with invalid URLs or whether the 'normalize or cite' behavior in the `url` parameter description applies.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences make this very concise. The key value proposition and core transformations are present without fluff.

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?

Despite the clear core purpose, the tool is not contextually complete for the given input schema. The description does not explain that only `url` matters, does not reconcile the 'normalize or cite' hint in the `url` schema, and provides no output format or error behavior, making it risky for an agent to call correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantics for the `url` parameter by explaining normalization drops query/fragment, but it does nothing for the other 8 parameters, leaving potential confusion about which to use.

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 main action: return origin, host, and path for a URL, and explicitly defines what is dropped (query and fragment). This is a specific verb and resource that distinguishes it from sibling shape/check tools like browser-url-ok or web-fetch.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as extract-domain-url, fetch-status, or domain-shape. It doesn't state any exclusions or mention that the only meaningful parameter is `url`, given the schema contains many unrelated fields.

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