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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the transformation (drops query/fragment) and does not disclose side effects (for example, whether the URL is fetched or processed locally), error behavior for invalid URLs, or that the other eight parameters are ignored before the call.

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 two short sentences with no filler, and the main outcome is front-loaded. Every word contributes to the call semantics.

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?

With no output schema, the text should explain the returned shape more fully, but it only gives the names of fields (origin, host, path). It also neither advertises that the non-url parameters are ignored nor clarifies the return format or invalid-input handling, so it is complete enough for basic call but not fully self-contained.

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% and every parameter has its own description, so the tool description adds little to parameter semantics. It does not clarify which parameter is the primary URL input beyond what the schema already says, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 gives a specific verb and result: 'Return origin, host, and path for a URL' and states the drop-query/fragment behavior. This is clear about the core resource and differentiates it from fetching/status tools, though it does not explicitly name or exclude any sibling tool.

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 text implies the tool should be used when you need origin/host/path without query/fragment, but it provides no alternatives, exclusions, or when-not-to-use guidance. An agent gets the implied use case but not enough to rule out related URL tools.

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