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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a key behavioral trait: query and fragment are dropped, and only origin, host, and path are returned. However, it does not mention handling of invalid URLs, whether the operation is read-only, or any other side effects.

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 two short sentences with no wasted words. The main output is front-loaded, and the dropped components are stated immediately afterward.

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?

Given the confusing multi-parameter schema, no annotations, and no output schema, a two-sentence description is insufficient. It does not explain how to handle multiple parameters, what return format to expect, or what happens when the URL is malformed or unsupported.

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 provides descriptions for all seven parameters, so the baseline is 3 even without parameter details in the description. The description adds useful meaning about what normalization produces, but it does not clarify which parameter is the intended URL input or how the many discarded parameters relate to the tool's purpose.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and names the resource ('a URL') plus the exact output components: origin, host, and path. It is clear enough to distinguish this tool from URL validation or shape-checking siblings, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 about when to use this tool versus sibling tools like browser-url-ok, figma-url-shape, or domain-shape. The description implies that it is for extracting URL components, but it never states when-not-to-use or mentions alternatives.

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