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

Without annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does reveal that query and fragment are dropped, which is useful, but it does not disclose how the many schema parameters are handled (e.g., ref, city, feed, json being discarded), potential errors, or response format.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The core behavior is front-loaded ('Return origin, host, and path') and the key transformation ('Query and fragment are dropped') follows immediately.

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?

For a simple URL-normalization tool, the description gives the essential output and transformation. However, the schema contains several seemingly unrelated parameters, and the description does not explain how they fit into the tool's behavior, leaving ambiguity for an agent choosing or 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 input schema already describes all parameters, including 'discarded after' notes. The description adds meaning for the url parameter by specifying output components, but it does not clarify the role of the other seven parameters beyond what the schema already provides.

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 function: 'Return origin, host, and path for a URL' and specifies that query and fragment are dropped. This distinguishes it from generic URL tools, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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 on when to use this tool versus related siblings like browser-url-ok, figma-url-shape, or playwright-url-ok. The description implies URL normalization but does not state exclusions or alternative conditions.

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