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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It does not mention return format (e.g., string vs object), error handling for invalid URLs, or any side effects. The statement 'Return origin, host, and path' is vague about the exact output structure.

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 exceptionally concise, using two short sentences with no redundant wording. It delivers the essential information about what the tool does and what it discards.

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 lacks critical context: it does not specify the return format, error behavior, or how to handle the extra parameters listed in the schema. Given the absence of an output schema and the unexplained parameters, an agent might not know what to expect or how to call the tool correctly.

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 descriptions cover all parameters (100% coverage), but the tool description only references 'url'. It adds no additional meaning about the roles of 'host', 'json', or 'zone', which appear unrelated to URL normalization and could confuse an agent about whether they are required or optional.

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 action ('Return') and the specific resource ('origin, host, and path for a URL') with a precise scope ('Query and fragment are dropped'), making its purpose unmistakable even without sibling context.

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 alternatives like 'domain-shape' or 'inspect-robots', nor does it mention any prerequisites or limitations. It simply states the function without contextual usage advice.

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