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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that query and fragment are dropped, which is a behavioral trait. However, it omits crucial details such as the output format (e.g., JSON object), error handling for invalid URLs, whether the URL is validated, or any side effects. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.

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 a single, concise sentence, which is structurally efficient. However, it is too terse; it provides only the core action without any supporting detail. While it is not bloated, it sacrifices substance for brevity, making it minimally acceptable.

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 tool has 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the return value format, which parameters are relevant, how to handle missing inputs, or when to use the tool. An agent would be unable to invoke this tool correctly with confidence.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no meaning to the parameters. It only mentions 'URL' implicitly, but the schema includes 9 optional parameters like 'city', 'feed', 'ref', etc., many of which seem unrelated to URL normalization. The description fails to explain how these parameters interact with the tool's stated purpose, leaving the agent confused about what to pass.

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 clear action: 'Return origin, host, and path for a URL' and specifies that query and fragment are dropped. This is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'domain-shape' or 'figma-url-shape' that may also deal with URL components, so it misses the opportunity to disambiguate.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or situations where this tool is preferred over siblings such as 'browser-url-ok' or 'web-fetch'. The description is entirely silent on usage context.

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