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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a meaningful behavior: query and fragment are dropped. It does not mention whether the operation is purely local, how invalid URLs are handled, or the return shape, but the core behavioral trait is present.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The primary result is front-loaded, and the key behavioral caveat about dropped query/fragment is stated immediately.

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 is incomplete for an annotation-free tool with no output schema. The schema includes json and zone parameters that are completely unexplained by the description, and the host parameter's relationship to the returned 'host' field is ambiguous. An agent could easily be confused about how to call this tool with the non-URL parameters.

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 the baseline is 3 even without parameter details in the description. The description does add meaning for the URL input by describing what is returned, but it does not explain the host, json, and zone parameters, which appear unrelated to the described purpose.

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 states a specific verb and result: it returns origin, host, and path for a URL, and it clearly specifies that query and fragment are dropped. This is enough to distinguish the tool from siblings like validate-json or timezone at the purpose level.

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 the tool: when an agent needs URL components such as origin, host, and path without query/fragment. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so usage 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.