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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently states that query and fragment are dropped, which is valuable. However, it does not mention validation behavior, error handling, what happens with invalid URLs, or that many schema parameters are unrelated and discarded.

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 compact, front-loaded sentences with no filler: the main output is stated first, and the excluded behavior is stated second. This is a model of concise, structured description writing.

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 nine optional parameters, no required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description explains only the URL behavior and is silent on return format, shape, or why the schema accepts unrelated parameters. An agent can infer the intended use but lacks enough context to confidently call the tool correctly, especially the structure of the returned origin/host/path object.

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 each parameter has its own schema-level description. The tool description adds some meaning for `url` (it is the input whose origin/host/path are returned) but does not explain why the other eight parameters exist. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema covers the parameters, even though the overall input surface is confusing.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it returns origin, host, and path for a URL, and drops query and fragment. This clearly communicates the tool's main function, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like browser-url-ok or fetch-status.

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 implies when to use the tool: when you need origin, host, or path components of a URL and you want query/fragment removed. It suggests you should not use it if you need the full URL, but it does not name alternatives or provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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