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

It discloses that query and fragment are dropped and that the result includes origin, host, and path. However, with no annotations, it does not mention whether any network access occurs, error behavior for invalid URLs, or side effects.

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 with no filler. It conveys the core behavior and output in a compact form.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the response shape is unspecified. The presence of many unrelated-looking parameters and the 'query' ambiguity make the description insufficient for confident correct use in all cases.

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?

Although all parameters have schema descriptions, the tool description does not clarify that only the 'url' parameter is used or how the other discarded parameters relate. The word 'query' in the description also creates ambiguity with the separate 'query' input parameter described as search text.

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 names a specific operation (return origin, host, and path) and a clear resource (a URL), and it states the filtering behavior. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling URL tools, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 about when to choose this tool over sibling URL-related tools such as browser-url-ok, fetch-status, or web-fetch. The description implies parsing/normalizing, but does not state exclusions or conditions.

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