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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior, but it only mentions 'URL discarded'. It doesn't say whether the tool returns a boolean, errors, or performs network requests. The schema hints at 'no disk access' and 'discarded' for several parameters, but the description itself omits even the primary action.

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 extremely short, but it's under-specification rather than conciseness. It fails to define the tool's behavior or purpose, making the brevity a negative because every word is vague and unhelpful.

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 9-parameter schema, no annotations, and no output schema, a one-line fragment is wholly inadequate. An agent cannot infer which parameter to supply, what results to expect, or how this tool differs from several similar-looking siblings.

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, but the description adds little semantic value and actually contradicts the schema for the 'url' parameter: the description says 'URL discarded' while the schema says 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite'. This inconsistency could mislead an agent into expecting different behavior.

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 'Origin scheme+host shape, URL discarded' is a fragment without an action verb. It vaguely references a shape check but doesn't state what the tool does (validate? extract? normalize?). It also doesn't distinguish it from sibling shape tools like domain-shape or normalize-url, and the presence of 9 unrelated input parameters further muddies the purpose.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It doesn't mention conditions, exclusions, or relationships to sibling tools like domain-shape or normalize-url, leaving an agent without any routing information.

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