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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral transparency burden. It does disclose that query and fragment are dropped and that origin, host, and path are returned, but it does not mention error behavior, handling of the many unrelated schema parameters, or whether any input is mutated or persisted.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The core output is front-loaded, and the behavioral constraint about query and fragment follows directly.

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?

A simple tool can be adequately described at this length, and the description covers the core transformation. However, there is no output schema and no mention of the return format or how to handle the numerous unrelated schema parameters, leaving some ambiguity for an agent selecting and invoking the tool.

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 already describes all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful semantic meaning beyond the schema: notably that query and fragment are stripped from the URL and that the result contains origin, host, and path. However, it does not clarify which of the eight schema properties is the primary input beyond the implicit reference to 'URL'.

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 (Return) and resource (URL), and explicitly names the output fields: origin, host, and path. It also specifies what is dropped (query and fragment), making the tool's function unambiguous even before examining the schema.

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 siblings such as domain-shape, browser-url-ok, or web-fetch. There are no exclusions, alternative recommendations, or contextual conditions provided.

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