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 key behavioral trait. However, with no annotations, it does not disclose error handling, input validation constraints (e.g., HTTPS requirement from the schema), or side effects beyond normalization.

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 two short sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. It is efficiently structured and easy to parse.

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?

Despite a simple stated purpose, the tool has 9 parameters and no output schema. The description only addresses the URL parameter and leaves the purpose of the other parameters unexplained, creating ambiguity. It also omits error behavior and return format, making the definition incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool.

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 coverage is 100% for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning to the 'url' parameter beyond the schema, and it completely ignores the other 8 parameters, leaving their relevance unclear. This is a missed opportunity to clarify the tool's actual scope.

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 verb (return) and resource (URL) and specifies the output components (origin, host, path) and what is discarded (query, fragment). It is specific and unambiguous, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like browser-url-ok or figma-url-shape. It does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or scenarios that would lead an agent to choose this tool over others.

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