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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly reveals that query strings and fragments are intentionally dropped and that the result is composed of origin, host, and path. It leaves error behavior unspecified, but the core behavioral contract is well stated.

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?

Two short sentences deliver the purpose and the key behavioral caveat with no filler. The main claim is front-loaded, and every clause adds information an agent would need before calling 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?

The description is adequate for a simple URL parser, but with 9 optional parameters and no output schema, it could do more to clarify which parameter is the primary input and how the other parameters relate to the task. The schema supplies most parameter semantics, but the tool-level guidance is thin.

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 the input schema already documents all 9 parameters. The tool description does not add much parameter-level meaning beyond the schema; it only tells what the overall output is. That matches the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 identifies the action ('Return origin, host, and path') and the resource ('a URL'), and it adds the useful scoping detail that query and fragment are dropped. It does not explicitly contrast itself with URL-related sibling tools like browser-url-ok or playwright-url-ok, so it does not fully earn a 5.

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/host tools, nor is there a statement of when not to use it. The description states what it returns, but it does not help an agent decide which tool is appropriate for a given task.

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