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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It discloses only that query and fragment are dropped, but ignores the other eight schema parameters (e.g., ref, city, json) and their behavior. This creates a misleading impression that the tool is solely URL-focused, when the schema suggests a broader utility.

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 efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and result. No redundant words.

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, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is grossly incomplete. It only covers URL normalization while the schema includes weather hints, JSON validation, file paths, and more, leaving the agent without sufficient context to correctly invoke the tool for those other inputs.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter is individually documented. The description adds minimal value by implying the 'url' parameter is primary, but it does not explain how the other parameters relate to the stated output or whether they are ignored. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 specific verb ('Return') and resource ('origin, host, and path for a URL'), with a clear behavioral detail ('Query and fragment are dropped'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like browser-url-ok or fetch-status, and the schema's many unrelated parameters introduce ambiguity about the tool's actual scope.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It neither names sibling tools nor gives conditions for selection, leaving the agent to infer applicability from the one-line description.

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