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

With no annotations, the description is the only source of behavior. It discloses the output components and that query/fragment are dropped, but it does not mention error handling, invalid input behavior, or whether the numerous unrelated parameters are ignored.

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 concise, with two short sentences and no redundant wording. It is well structured for a simple tool.

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 nine-parameter schema and lack of output schema or annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not clarify the roles of the extra parameters, the expected output format beyond field names, or edge-case behavior, so an agent cannot confidently invoke it correctly in all contexts.

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 input schema contains nine parameters, but the description only relates to 'url' and possibly 'query'. Most parameters (ref, city, feed, json, path, zone) have descriptions that appear unrelated to URL normalization and are not explained in the tool description, making their semantics highly ambiguous.

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 for a URL and drops query/fragment. It uses a specific verb and resource, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling URL-related 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 instead of alternatives like browser-url-ok, fetch-status, or web-fetch. The description only states what it does, not when it should be selected.

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