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

The description discloses the key transformation behavior: query and fragment are dropped. No side effects, permissions, or error handling are mentioned, but for a simple parsing utility this level of transparency is sufficient. It does not contradict any annotations (none provided).

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 front-loads the core action and output. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no 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 covers the primary return value and dropping behavior, but it lacks guidance on edge cases (e.g., invalid URLs, missing parameters) and does not address the presence of many seemingly unrelated parameters in the schema. For a tool with a simple core function, this is acceptable but not fully complete given the schema complexity.

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 schema includes nine parameters, many of which (e.g., city, feed, zone, query) appear unrelated to URL normalization. The description does not clarify which parameters are relevant or how they affect the output. Despite the schema having descriptions, they are generic and do not compensate for the mismatch, leaving the agent confused about parameter usage.

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 purpose: it returns origin, host, and path for a URL. It also specifies what is dropped (query and fragment), making the behavior unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling URL-related tools by focusing on component extraction rather than checking or fetching.

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?

The description implies when to use it (when needing URL components) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like browser-url-ok or fetch-status. There is no mention of when not to use it or when another tool would be preferable, so guidance is only implicit.

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