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

The description only mentions parsing from a GitHub URL, but the schema includes 9 unrelated parameters (city, feed, json, zone, etc.) with no explanation of their role. This misrepresents the tool's actual scope and fails to disclose behavior for these parameters, especially with no annotations to compensate.

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 sentence, which is concise, but it is too sparse for a tool with 9 parameters and no output schema. The brevity sacrifices necessary detail, making it under-specified rather than efficiently concise.

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's complexity (9 params, no required, no output schema, no annotations), the description is grossly incomplete. It doesn't explain the purpose of the other parameters, the return format, or error behavior, leaving agents with insufficient information to call the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has a description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema—it doesn't even explicitly state that 'url' is the relevant parameter—but it doesn't contradict the schema either. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 function with a specific verb ('Parse') and resource ('owner and repo from a GitHub URL'), which is distinct from sibling shape tools like figma-url-shape or jira-key-shape. It unambiguously identifies the target input type and expected output.

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 instead of alternatives such as normalize-url or browser-url-ok. There are no usage conditions, exclusions, or mention of alternatives, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.

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