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

With no annotations present, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose an important transformation—query and fragment are dropped—but it does not describe the output format, behavior for invalid URLs, or what happens with the many other input parameters. This is a meaningful but not severe gap.

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 sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded and the limiting behavior follows immediately, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 normalization operation with high schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate, but there is no output schema and the description does not state the exact return structure or clarify which parameter among the seven should be used. An agent can likely infer the intent, but ambiguity remains.

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 descriptions for all seven parameters, so schema coverage is high and the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond naming the URL as the core input, and does not clarify how the separate 'host' and 'path' parameters relate to the returned origin, host, and path.

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') and resource ('origin, host, and path for a URL'), and immediately specifies the key behavior that query and fragment are dropped. It is specific enough to be useful, but it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling URL-related tools like browser-url-ok or fetch-status.

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 implies when to use the tool: when a caller needs origin, host, or path components and does not need query or fragment. The 'Query and fragment are dropped' clause provides an implicit exclusion, but no alternative tools or explicit when-not-to-use guidance are mentioned.

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