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

The description discloses the key behavioral trait: query and fragment are discarded. With no annotations provided, it does not cover validation, error behavior, side effects, or edge cases, but the core transform is transparent enough for a simple normalization operation.

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 no filler: the first states the output, the second states a critical limitation. Information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 transform, the description covers the returned components and dropped parts. But with no output schema and no annotations, it could be more explicit about the return shape, URL validity requirements, and which parameter to use, especially given the noisy seven-parameter schema.

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 has seven parameters, yet the description never explicitly identifies 'url' as the operative input. The schema's descriptions cover each parameter individually, but the clutter of unrelated discarded parameters and the presence of 'host' and 'path' as both outputs and schema fields creates real invocation ambiguity.

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 names a specific operation: return origin, host, and path for a URL, and explicitly states that query and fragment are dropped. This makes the tool's purpose distinct from siblings like web-fetch or playwright-url-ok.

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 is implied: an agent can infer this tool is appropriate when it needs origin, host, and path without query/fragment. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no reference to alternative tools.

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