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 that it does not include WHOIS/ownership data, but gives no information about return format, error behavior, or what 'splitting into labels' actually produces. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation safety profile.

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 sentence and technically concise, but it omits crucial operational details. It is under-specified rather than efficiently complete, and the front-loaded statement about not using WHOIS is less important than explaining how to invoke the tool.

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 output schema, and no usage guidance, the description is far from complete. An agent cannot determine which parameter to use, what result to expect, or how this differs from similar shape tools. This is a serious gap for a tool with this complexity.

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 covers all parameters, but the description adds no clarification on which parameter to use. For example, 'host' is described as 'Public hostname' in the schema, yet the description doesn't confirm that this is the intended input. The description provides zero added value beyond the schema's terse descriptions.

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 (split) and resource (hostname) and clarifies that it excludes WHOIS/ownership data. However, it does not indicate which of the 9 parameters represents the hostname, leaving some ambiguity about the actual input.

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 its siblings like figma-url-shape or github-repo-shape, nor does it explain which parameter to pass for the hostname. The schema's many unrelated parameters (city, json, path, query) make the intended usage unclear.

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