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

The description explicitly states that query and fragment are dropped, which is a clear behavioral trait. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the core transformation. However, it does not mention error handling or input validation behavior, so it is not fully transparent.

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 that is front-loaded with the action and drops the key behavioral detail (dropping query and fragment) immediately. Every word earns its place, with no wasted text.

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?

The tool has 9 parameters but the description only references a URL, failing to specify that only 'url' is relevant. There is no output schema, and the description does not mention what happens with the other parameters or how invalid URLs are handled. This is incomplete for an agent to safely invoke the tool, especially given the schema's clutter.

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 100% coverage of parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already states. It does not clarify that only the 'url' parameter is used, leaving other parameters unexplained in context.

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 for a URL, which is specific and actionable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling URL-related tools like browser-url-ok or fetch-status, so it loses one point for lack of sibling distinction.

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 alternatives. The description simply states the function without mentioning any prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions for selection. This leaves the agent to infer when this tool is appropriate.

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