parse_url

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does not state whether this is a read-only operation, whether it fetches network content, whether authentication is required, or what side effects the username search may have.

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 front-loaded sentence with no redundant text. Its brevity is appropriate, though the phrase 'extract information' is under-specified rather than wastefully verbose.

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?

This tool has two parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description needs to explain more about behavior and scope. It omits what information is extracted, what the username search returns, and how the output format choice affects results.

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 explains both the URL and output format parameters. The description does not add any details about URL formats, supported schemes, or how the format enum affects behavior, so it remains at the baseline for high 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 names a specific verb and resource, 'Parse a URL,' but qualifies it with the vague phrase 'extract information' without saying what information. It also mentions searching for associated usernames, which blurs the boundary with the sibling search_username tool rather than clearly distinguishing this tool.

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 explicit guidance on when to use parse_url versus search_username or when not to use it. The phrase about searching for associated usernames hints at overlapping use cases but does not resolve which tool should be selected.

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