URL parse

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, closed-world), and the description adds real substance beyond them: a scheme-less input is coerced to https://, passwords are never echoed, duplicate and bare query params are preserved and '+' is treated as space. It does not state behavior on malformed URLs, which is the main remaining gap.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and output shape, then defaults, then privacy behavior; nearly every clause carries information. The tracking-parameter enumeration with an ellipsis and the web-version link are mildly expendable but not wasteful.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries return-value disclosure and does it well, enumerating fields and the optional cleanUrl. It falls just short of complete by omitting error behavior for unparseable input, which matters for a parser.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description genuinely adds semantics for both parameters: it explains the implicit 'https://' default for a scheme-less url and clarifies that stripTracking yields a cleanUrl with the listed tracking parameters removed. That goes beyond the terse schema text.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('split') on a specific resource ('a URL') and enumerates the exact output components (protocol, user, host, port, path, query, fragment, origin, decoded forms), plus a query-parameter listing and tracking-flag pass. This makes it trivially distinguishable from the encoding-oriented siblings url_encode/url_decode and from useragent_parse.

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?

Usage is implied by the purpose (call it when you need a URL dissected or tracking stripped), and the stripTracking behavior is described. However, no sibling is named and there is no explicit when-not guidance, so the agent must infer the boundary against url_decode/url_encode on its own.

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