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

The description discloses the main output and that query/fragment are dropped, but it does not explain behavior for invalid URLs, missing parameters, or the many unrelated schema fields. With no annotations, this partial transparency is insufficient.

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 itself is concise and front-loaded, using one clear sentence. However, the overall tool definition is structurally muddled by the oversized, unrelated parameter list.

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 gives the output shape but omits how inputs are expected, what happens with invalid URLs, and why so many unrelated parameters exist. With no output schema, the description is not fully self-sufficient for an agent.

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 contains nine optional parameters, but most are unrelated to URL normalization (e.g., 'ref', 'city', 'feed', 'json', 'zone', 'query') and appear copied from other tools. Only 'url' aligns with the description, and the others add confusion rather than semantic clarity.

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 returns origin, host, and path from a URL and drops query and fragment. It is specific and understandable, though it does not mention the parameter name or distinguish itself from sibling URL tools.

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 versus alternatives such as web-fetch, browser-url-ok, or fetch-status. There is no mention of appropriate scenarios, prerequisites, or edge cases.

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