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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility. It discloses that query and fragment are dropped, which is useful, but it ignores the nine schema parameters (e.g., city, feed, json) and their behaviors. The schema itself hints at discarding these values, but the description does not explain what the tool actually does with them, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence conveys the core function and a key behavioral trait (dropping query and fragment). No wasted words; it is efficiently structured.

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 9 optional parameters and no output schema, yet the description only covers URL normalization. It fails to explain the role of the other parameters, the tool's behavior when they are supplied, or any return format beyond the three URL parts. This is incomplete for an agent attempting to call the tool correctly with a non-URL input.

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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions. It never mentions how 'url' relates to the other parameters, nor does it clarify that only 'url' is used for the stated output. Thus it provides no added value over the schema.

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 ('Return') and a clear resource ('origin, host, and path for a URL'). It distinguishes from sibling shape-checkers (e.g., browser-url-ok) by implying it returns URL components rather than a boolean. However, it does not acknowledge the schema's other parameters, making the purpose slightly narrower than the tool's apparent 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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like browser-url-ok or figma-url-shape. The description only states the function without any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage.

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