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

The description discloses a key transform behavior: 'Query and fragment are dropped.' This is valuable because it tells the agent the output intentionally excludes those parts. However, with no annotations provided, the description does not disclose other behaviors such as error handling, whether only HTTPS URLs are accepted, or that all non-url inputs are effectively ignored despite being present in the schema.

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 short sentences carry all the essential functional intent with no filler. The core behavior is front-loaded and the caveat about dropped parts follows immediately. This is an appropriate size for a simple utility.

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?

Despite a simple surface description, the input schema contains seven seemingly unrelated parameters with odd 'discarded' notes, and there is no output schema or annotations. The description does not explain how these parameters relate to URL normalization or when only url should be supplied, so an agent may not call the tool correctly in complex or ambiguous cases.

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 each parameter, including the unusual 'discarded after the shape check' notes, so baseline is 3. The description adds some meaning for the url parameter by specifying that query and fragment will be dropped, which the schema description does not state. It does not clarify the role of the many other parameters or whether any are required.

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 resource: 'Return origin, host, and path for a URL.' This clearly tells the agent what the tool produces. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling URL-related tools, but the scoped output makes the core purpose easy to grasp.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of siblings like web-fetch, browser-url-ok, or fetch-status. The description does not mention ideal scenarios, exclusions, or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name and terse description.

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