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

Annotations are absent, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the primary output (origin, host, path) and that query/fragment are dropped, which is useful. However, it fails to explain why the input schema contains nine parameters (e.g., city, feed, json, zone) that appear unrelated to URL normalization, and it gives no indication of side effects, errors, or return format. The description is silent on these critical aspects, leaving significant ambiguity.

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 extremely concise, containing two short sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the core behavior (return origin, host, path) and the key constraint (drop query/fragment). This is efficient and well-structured for a simple read operation, though it sacrifices necessary context for brevity.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (nine parameters, no output schema, no annotations) and the presence of many sibling tools, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the purpose of the extra parameters, specify when to use this tool over alternatives, describe the return format, or address error handling. An agent would have to make many assumptions to invoke this tool 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%, so all parameters have textual descriptions in the schema itself. The tool description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema. While the schema descriptions are present, some are confusing (e.g., 'city' for weather hints), and the tool description does not clarify which parameters are relevant or how they relate to the stated purpose. It neither compensates for gaps nor adds value, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Return') and the resource ('origin, host, and path for a URL'), and specifies that query and fragment are dropped. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like browser-url-ok or figma-url-shape, which focus on validation/shape checks. The purpose is unambiguous and directly tied to the tool's name.

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. Sibling tools such as browser-url-ok, figma-url-shape, and github-repo-shape exist, but the description does not mention any conditions or exclusions. Usage context is only implied by the name and description, leaving the agent to infer appropriateness without explicit direction.

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