parse_utm_params

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it extracts UTM parameters but does not disclose what happens when no UTM parameters are present, the output format, error handling, or whether the operation is read-only. This is a significant gap for an unannotated tool.

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, which is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. While it is efficient, it is so terse that it under-specifies the tool, though that is more an issue of completeness than conciseness. It earns credit for avoiding verbosity.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how to interpret the output, or any edge cases (e.g., URLs without UTM parameters). An agent would need additional documentation to call 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate by explaining the 'url' parameter. It does not provide any additional meaning beyond the parameter name, such as expected URL format, encoding, or required structure. The agent has no guidance on how to supply a valid value.

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 extracts UTM parameters from a URL, using a specific verb ('extract') and resource ('UTM parameters from a URL'). It inherently distinguishes itself from sibling tools like build_utm_url, which is about constructing URLs, not parsing them.

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. There is no mention of prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions. The description is a single sentence without any usage context, leaving the agent to infer the tool's applicability from the name alone.

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