parse_url

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does ('parsear y analizar') but doesn't describe behavioral traits such as error handling (e.g., for invalid URLs), output format, or performance characteristics. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence in Spanish ('Parsear y analizar componentes de una URL') that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every word earning its place.

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 (parsing URLs can involve multiple components like protocol, domain, path), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what components are analyzed, the return format, or error cases, leaving gaps for the agent to understand the tool's full behavior.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'url' documented as 'URL a parsear'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it doesn't elaborate on URL formats, constraints, or examples. This meets the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Parsear y analizar componentes de una URL' clearly states the tool's purpose: parsing and analyzing URL components. It uses specific verbs ('parsear', 'analizar') and identifies the resource ('URL'), but it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'extract_urls', 'validate_url', or 'url_encode_decode', which prevents a perfect score.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'extract_urls' (for extracting URLs from text), 'validate_url' (for validation), or 'url_encode_decode' (for encoding/decoding), leaving the agent to infer usage context without explicit direction.

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