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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that query and fragment are dropped and that the return value consists of origin, host, and path. However, it remains silent on the semantic behavior of the other eight parameters (e.g., why they exist, whether they are ignored or produce side effects), and whether the operation is read-only is implied but not explicitly stated.

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 redundant wording. The core behavior and transformation are stated upfront, and the operation is summarized efficiently. It is appropriately concise for a functional statement, though it lacks detail in other dimensions.

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?

Given the tool has 9 parameters, no required ones, and no output schema, the description is notably incomplete. It describes only URL normalization but leaves unexplained how the other parameters fit, what the full behavior is, and how the return value is structured except for the three components. An agent would not know whether passing 'city' or 'zone' affects the call or is simply ignored, creating substantial ambiguity for a diverse tool.

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 each parameter has a description in the schema, which already explains their individual purposes and disposal. The tool description adds no new parameter-level information beyond implying the 'url' parameter is used. It does not clarify which parameter is primary or how the others interact, so it adds little to what the schema already provides.

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 operation ('Return origin, host, and path for a URL') and a concrete behavior (dropping query and fragment). This clearly communicates the primary function. However, it does not differentiate from sibling URL-tools like browser-url-ok or figma-url-shape, and the schema's many unrelated parameters are not mentioned, creating ambiguity about the tool's full scope.

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 versus siblings such as browser-url-ok, figma-url-shape, or fetch-status. The description states a mechanical operation but gives no context about typical use cases, prerequisites, or alternatives. An agent would have no rationale for selecting this tool over similar ones.

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