Your link is actually a great example. It's readable, you know what each part of the link is for (unless you're tech illiterate in which case just the readable quality is enough). And so by clicking it, I know I'll probably head to some page called Dangerous to see virus.exe.
Contrast that to a link like "password-man-comp.tool.win". Which at first glance can be confusing to most where the TLD is and where the subdomain is. Or like the above person's tool. Either go with something readable, even if long, or go with something short and clever. Combining both winds up looking suspicious to most people.
Which I guess is the funny part, the ones most harmed by a badly named website/link are genuine people wanting to provide a service to others, whereas malicious actors will likely use more effective (and less easily blocked) means of phishing.
Contrast that to a link like "password-man-comp.tool.win". Which at first glance can be confusing to most where the TLD is and where the subdomain is. Or like the above person's tool. Either go with something readable, even if long, or go with something short and clever. Combining both winds up looking suspicious to most people.
Which I guess is the funny part, the ones most harmed by a badly named website/link are genuine people wanting to provide a service to others, whereas malicious actors will likely use more effective (and less easily blocked) means of phishing.