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

The description discloses that query and fragment are dropped, which is a useful behavioral detail. However, it does not mention that the other eight parameters (ref, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, query) are discarded and only 'url' is used, a significant behavior given the schema. With no annotations to cover this, the description falls short on transparency.

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 with no wasted words. However, given the schema complexity, it may be too brief to convey essential usage details, but the conciseness itself is good.

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 tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain that only the 'url' parameter is relevant, nor does it describe behavior for invalid URLs or the exact format of the returned origin, host, and path. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to call it correctly.

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 schema provides descriptions for all 9 parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema already states, and it does not clarify which parameter is the primary input for normalization.

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 returns origin, host, and path from a URL and drops query/fragment. This is a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes from sibling shape tools by naming the exact output. However, the input schema includes many unrelated parameters, which could confuse an agent about which parameter is the URL, slightly weakening clarity.

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 sibling tools like domain-shape or github-repo-shape. The description does not mention alternatives or conditions for selection, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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