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

The description does disclose a real behavioral trait: query and fragment are dropped. With no annotations available, the description carries the transparency burden, but it does not mention error behavior, whether any network access occurs, or that the many extra schema parameters are discarded.

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?

Two compact sentences with the main action and output in the first sentence and a precise exclusion in the second. Every word earns its place and the key behavior is front-loaded.

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 core output is stated, but there is no output schema and no explicit return format. The description also leaves the relationship to the many URL/shape siblings unclear and does not explain why the schema contains many unrelated optional 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 all nine parameters already have individual descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the URL behavior; the schema's 'discarded after...' notes do the semantic work.

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 that the tool returns origin, host, and path for a URL and drops query and fragment, so the verb and resource are explicit. It does not name or contrast with sibling URL-related tools, though the stated output components make it reasonably distinguishable.

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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as browser-url-ok, web-fetch, or the various shape-checking siblings. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or hints about which sibling to prefer in which scenario.

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