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

The description discloses the output behavior and that query/fragment are dropped, but it does not mention error handling, invalid URL behavior, or that many schema parameters appear unrelated. Without annotations, this partial behavior disclosure is adequate but not complete.

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 that immediately states the behavior and output. There is no filler or redundant information.

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 which of the 9 optional parameters are actually used beyond 'url' and does not explain the output format or potential errors. With no output schema and a mismatched parameter list, the description leaves the agent with insufficient context to call the tool confidently.

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 description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, and the schema descriptions themselves are inconsistent with the tool's purpose (e.g., 'city' and 'zone' are listed for a URL normalizer). Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3, but the odd parameter descriptions prevent a higher score.

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 core function: 'Return origin, host, and path for a URL' and specifies that query and fragment are dropped. This is a specific verb-plus-resource statement that distinguishes it from siblings like fetch-status or web-fetch.

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 about when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as browser-url-ok or web-fetch. The description only states what the tool does, not the conditions or context in which it should be selected.

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