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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the core purpose and does not disclose behavior for invalid URLs, return format, or that only the 'url' parameter is used while others are discarded. The schema hints at discarding, but the description does not reinforce this.

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 that is front-loaded with the purpose. It has no fluff, but is terse and omits necessary details about parameter mapping and behavior.

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, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It lacks the output format, which parameter to use, and error handling. The description alone is insufficient 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, but the description does not clarify which parameter is the GitHub URL. The schema's 'url' description is generic, and the tool description adds no mapping or additional meaning for any of the 9 parameters.

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 and resource: 'Parse owner and repo from a GitHub URL.' However, it does not specify which input parameter is the GitHub URL. The schema's 'url' parameter is described generically as 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite', creating ambiguity about the mapping.

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 given on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like domain-shape, figma-url-shape, or jira-key-shape. There is no mention of alternatives, conditions, or exclusions.

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