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

With no annotations, the description reveals one meaningful behavior beyond the schema: query and fragment are dropped. However, it is silent on how invalid URLs are handled, whether the many other accepted parameters are simply ignored, and what the exact return shape is.

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, with the core behavior stated first and no filler. Every word contributes.

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 9-parameter schema, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does not explain which parameter is the primary input, why the other parameters are discarded, or what the return value looks like. It is too sparse for the complexity indicated by the context signals.

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 the schema already documents every parameter; the description adds no per-parameter meaning beyond clarifying that the URL's query and fragment are removed. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the description does not need to compensate for missing schema docs.

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 (origin, host, and path for a URL), and clarifies that query and fragment are dropped. This is distinct from sibling URL tools that validate or fetch, so an agent can tell it apart without inspecting schemas.

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?

Usage context is only implied: use this when you need URL components and not query/fragment. It does not state when to prefer it over siblings like browser-url-ok or web-fetch, nor does it list exclusions.

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