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

The description indicates a pure parse operation with no obvious side effects, but it does not mention behavior on invalid URLs, whether normalization occurs, or whether the operation is read-only. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden.

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 concise sentence with no unnecessary words or repetition.

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 description omits essential context such as the return format, how invalid or non-GitHub URLs are handled, and why the schema includes many apparently unrelated optional parameters. This makes the tool under-specified for an agent.

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 optional parameters, but the description only relates to parsing a GitHub URL. The 'url' parameter description says 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite' rather than 'GitHub URL to parse owner and repo,' and the other parameters like city, zone, and query are irrelevant. An agent cannot confidently determine which parameter to pass.

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: parse owner and repo from a GitHub URL. It names the specific resource and the expected extraction, though it does not describe the output format.

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 intended use is implied by the tool name and description, but there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over similar sibling tools such as figma-url-shape or jira-key-shape.

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