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

The description discloses one behavioral aspect (query and fragment are dropped) but does not state whether the operation is read-only, has side effects, or how invalid inputs are handled. With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden but only partially fulfills it.

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 redundancy. It states the core behavior and a key transformation in a compact, well-structured manner.

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?

With 9 parameters all optional and no output schema, the description lacks essential context: it does not identify the input URL parameter, explain the other parameters, specify the return format, or handle edge cases. The tool is effectively unusable from the description alone.

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 description says nothing about parameters. The schema descriptions are present but nonsensical for a URL normalizer (e.g., 'ref' as 'Git ref name', 'city' as 'City name'), providing no useful meaning. The description fails to clarify which parameter is the URL or how the others relate to the operation.

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 action: 'Return origin, host, and path for a URL' and specifies what is dropped ('Query and fragment are dropped'). This is a specific verb and resource that distinguishes it from generic URL tools.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool vs siblings like browser-url-ok or web-fetch. There is no mention of conditions, alternatives, or context where this normalization is appropriate.

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