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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add one useful behavioral trait — 'Query and fragment are dropped' — but it omits any mention of the json discard behavior beyond what the schema already states, and it gives no indication of return format or side effects. Minimal but non-zero value.

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 sentences with the key behavioral constraint ('Query and fragment are dropped') front-loaded. No filler or redundancy, though the brevity contributes to the completeness gap elsewhere.

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 four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description must do substantial explanatory work. It only covers the URL case, ignores the json and zone parameters entirely, and never clarifies what 'host' means as an input. An agent cannot confidently call this tool for the non-URL behaviors the schema suggests.

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 the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds value for the url parameter by explaining that query and fragment are dropped, but it adds no meaning for host, json, or zone. 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Return origin, host, and path for a URL') and clearly scopes the URL case, but the input schema exposes three unrelated parameters (host, json, zone) that the description never mentions. This makes the tool's actual scope ambiguous and risks misleading an agent into thinking URL normalization is the only behavior.

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, what inputs are appropriate for which behavior, or how it relates to alternative tools. The description's silence about the json and zone parameters leaves the agent without direction on whether those are valid use cases.

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