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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It does state that query and fragment are dropped, which is a clear behavior. However, it fails to explain why the schema contains nine unrelated parameters or that only 'url' is used. It also does not specify return format or error behavior, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core functionality. It is efficient with no filler. However, it is under-specified because it omits critical context about the other parameters, but that is a completeness issue rather than a conciseness problem.

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 tool has no output schema, no annotations, and nine parameters, yet the description is extremely brief. It does not describe the return structure (e.g., object fields), error handling, or why the other parameters exist. An agent would be confused about whether to pass other arguments or how to interpret the result. The description is inadequate for a tool with this complexity and no structured metadata.

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 each parameter has a description. The tool description adds meaning only for 'url' by specifying that query and fragment are removed. The schema descriptions already clarify that other parameters are discarded, so the description adds minimal extra value beyond the schema. With high coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate, but the description could have clarified that only 'url' matters.

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's purpose: 'Return origin, host, and path for a URL. Query and fragment are dropped.' This is a specific verb and resource that distinguishes it from siblings like 'browser-url-ok' or 'figma-url-shape'. However, it does not explicitly mention that the other eight parameters are ignored, leaving some ambiguity about the tool's scope.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It does not mention conditions, alternatives, or exclusions. Siblings like 'browser-url-ok' or 'github-repo-shape' exist, but no comparison is offered, so an agent must infer usage from the name and description alone.

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